Harry has two houses, a house on Quail Lake and a house in downtown Stockton. Sally wants to buy the house on the lake. Harry and Sally orally agree that Sally will buy the house on the lake for $500,000. Harry hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Sally for $500,000. Harry signs the top of the document. Sally does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Harry backs out of the contract, and Sally sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and also because Sally did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in downtown Stockton, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house. Which of the following is true regarding Harry's assertion that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because he did not sign the document at the end? A. Harry is incorrect because he is the one being sued, and he signed the document Harry is correct.
B. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require Sally's signature so long as both the selling price and the type of subject matter involved was referenced.
C. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her Signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced