Abel owned Blackacre in fee simple. Three years ago, Abel and Betty agreed to a monthto-month tenancy with Betty paying Abel rent each month. After six months of Betty's occupancy, Abel suggested to Betty that she could buy Blackacre for a monthly payment of no more than her rent. Abel and Betty orally agreed that Betty would pay $25,000 in cash, the annual real estate taxes, the annual fire insurance premiums, and the costs of maintaining Blackacre, plus the monthly mortgage payments that Abel owed on Blackacre. They further orally agreed that within six years Betty could pay whatever mortgage balances were then due and Abel would give her a warranty deed to the property. Betty's average monthly payments did turn out to be about the same as her monthly rent. Betty fully complied with all of the obligations she had undertaken. She made some structural modifications to Blackacre. Blackacre is now worth 50% more than it was when Abel and Betty made their oral agreement. Betty made her financing arrangements and was ready to complete the purchase of Blackacre, but Abel refused to close. Betty brought an appropriate action for specific performance against Abel to enforce the agreement. The court should rule for 
Abel, because the agreements were oral and violated the statute of frauds.  Abel, subject to the return of the $25,000, because the arrangement was still a tenancy.  Betty, because the doctrine of part performance applies.  Betty, because the statute of frauds does not apply to oral purchase and sale agreements between landlords and tenants in possession. 
Question: Abel owned Blackacre in fee simple. Three years ago, Abel and Betty agreed to a monthto-month tenancy with Betty paying Abel rent each month. After six months of Betty's occupancy, Abel suggested to Betty that she could buy Blackacre for a monthly payment of no more than her rent. Abel and Betty orally agreed that Betty would pay $25,000 in cash, the annual real estate taxes, the annual fire insurance premiums, and the costs of maintaining Blackacre, plus the monthly mortgage payments that Abel owed on Blackacre. They further orally agreed that within six years Betty could pay whatever mortgage balances were then due and Abel would give her a warranty deed to the property. Betty's average monthly payments did turn out to be about the same as her monthly rent. Betty fully complied with all of the obligations she had undertaken. She made some structural modifications to Blackacre. Blackacre is now worth 50% more than it was when Abel and Betty made their oral agreement. Betty made her financing arrangements and was ready to complete the purchase of Blackacre, but Abel refused to close. Betty brought an appropriate action for specific performance against Abel to enforce the agreement. The court should rule for 
A. Abel, because the agreements were oral and violated the statute of frauds. 
B. Abel, subject to the return of the $25,000, because the arrangement was still a tenancy. 
C. Betty, because the doctrine of part performance applies. 
D. Betty, because the statute of frauds does not apply to oral purchase and sale agreements between landlords and tenants in possession. 
Answer: