Final answer:
The contract in question does not necessarily need to be in writing under the statute of frauds because it's possible for Chelsea to pay for the services within one year, making it theoretically performable within that timeframe.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statute of frauds is a legal concept that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. In this scenario, the contract between Chelsea and Annie for hair services, payable within thirteen months, does fall under the statute of frauds due to the one-year rule. This rule states that contracts that cannot be performed within one year from the date of agreement must be in writing to be enforceable. However, if it is theoretically possible for the contract to be completed within a year, even if unlikely, it may not need to be in writing. Given that Chelsea could potentially pay Annie before the thirteen-month deadline, the contract could still be seen as one that is capable of being performed within a year. Therefore, it may not necessarily require a written agreement under the statute of frauds. So, the most accurate answer to the student's question would be: No. This contract would be enforceable, since it is possible Chelsea could pay earlier than a year.