Remember, Khalid needs you to analyze these issues objectively rather than persuasively. You will be evaluated on your understanding of the relevant law, as well as your ability to communicate your analysis and conclusions to your specific audience by discussing the law as it applies to the facts in an organized, concise, clear, and effective manner.

Their situation is described fully following these instructions. You need to prepare an objective, problem solving legal memorandum for the clients file. To do so, you should read the following fact pattern very carefully and analyze each of the specific issues identified

Facts:

American singer Khalid Donel Robinson (Khalid), unable to go on his worldwide tour due to the pandemic, decided to fulfill his dream of representing dogs to work in the entertainment industry like his pet, Maui, who was featured in a successful 2020 ad-campaign for Reebok. First, he decided to acquire five dogs, so he telephoned Kyrre Gorvell-Dahll (Kygo), a Norwegian DJ, who previously had collaborated with Khalid and was taking a break during the pandemic to work as a successful dog breeder and trainer, to inquire about the availability of healthy and fully trained dogs. Kygo responded that he had ten healthy, photogenic, pure-bred dogs available that went through extensive obedience and potty-training courses.

Khalid was unable to travel to visit Kygos kennel in another state due to the pandemic, so Kygo sent pictures and video of the ten dogs via email. At that time, Khalid specifically asked Kygo about the dogs overall health, as well as specific obedience and potty training, since they would be working for long hours on studio sets. Kygo assured him the dogs were in excellent condition and would be perfect for the intended purpose. However, Kygo was aware that most of the dogs had inherited a genetic heart defect that would render them unsuitable for prolonged work, were not pure-bred dogs, and had not been through any obedience or potty training. Kygo concealed this information from Khalid because he needed the money to pay back taxes. Kygo told Khalid that he could purchase the ten dogs for $1,000 each, but in fact they were not the same ten dogs that he had sent pictures and video of to Khalid in his email (he actually did not own those dogs).

Khalid thought about Kygos offer and telephoned him later that day to accept. Since Khalid already had a commercial lined up including dogs, he arranged for Kygo to deliver five dogs the next day by airplane, and he paid for the five dogs as soon as Kygo delivered them to the airport. After Khalid retrieved the dogs at LAX airport, he noticed they did not look exactly like the dogs in the pictures and videos. Once they got to the studio set, he observed that the dogs did not obey commands, and seemed to tire easily after running around. Several of the dogs actually collapsed, while others were biting the furniture and had potty accidents on set causing property damage. Khalid had them examined by a veterinarian, who confirmed his concerns that the dogs were in bad health and were not pure-bred.

Khalid immediately contacted Kygo, demanded his $5,000 back, and alerted Kygo that he would not pay for the remaining five dogs. Kygo refused to refund Khalid's money and asserts that they have a completely valid and enforceable contract that Khalid must fulfill by paying the other $5,000. Khalid is furious and wants to sue Kygo to return the five dogs, get back the $5,000 he paid. Khalid further claims that he never wanted the other five dogs and should not have to pay for them.

Khalid wants your law firm to analyze the following issues: Whether Khalid can rescind the alleged contract on the grounds that Kygo fraudulently induced him to enter the agreement?

Whether, in any event, the alleged contract between Khalid and Kygo is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds since it was not in writing? In addition to analyzing the applicability of the Statute of Frauds, you also need to consider whether there would be any applicable exceptions. (Do not analyze any exceptions that are clearly inapplicable.)