Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the case.” See First Community Bank v. In re E.M. Williams & Sons, Inc. (In re E.M. Williams & Sons, Inc.), 2009 WL 1321034 at *3 (Bankr.E.D.Va. May 8, 2009) (“Both the Plaintiff and the Trustee admit that the Partnership had agreed pre-petition to deed the Real Property to the Debtor.... The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to conclude, as the Plaintiff and the Trustee both stipulate, that the Debtor had an equitable interest in the Real Property, which interest became property of the Debtor’s estate on the Petition Date pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 541(a)(1).”), aff'd, 2010 WL 1279094 (E.D.Va. Mar.30, 2010). Depending on the circumstances, this could be true even if the agreement was oral. See Skiba v. Sipple (In re Sipple), 400 B.R. 475, 479 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2009) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, if the Debtor did not have 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a court must find among other things clear evidence of the existence of an oral agreement for part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds (B) holding that to establish an exception to the statute of frauds it must first be shown that an agreement to convey was actually reached that an oral contract must be established by clear and convincing evidence and that the chapter 7 trustee failed to establish that there was any parol contract for conveyance of property from debtors parents to the debtor (C) holding that the statute of frauds bars a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement to enter a future employment contract that would need to meet the statute of frauds (D) holding that where an oral contract was removed from the statute of frauds by clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law the defendant could not terminate the contract at its will only a contract of indefinite duration may be so terminated  (E) holding that in order for a contract to be enforced it is necessary that all the essential terms of the contract must first be established by competent evidence and shown to be definite certain clear and unambiguous
Output (English): holding that the statute of frauds bars a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement to enter a future employment contract that would need to meet the statute of frauds