Final answer:
If a contract is made orally and it is one that must be in writing under the statute of frauds, the contract is typically voidable. The statute requires certain contracts to be in writing, but the contract can sometimes be enforced based on actions like part performance or estoppel.
Step-by-step explanation:
When parties agree to a contract orally, but the contract must be in writing under the statute of frauds, the result is that the contract is generally voidable. The statute of frauds requires that certain types of contracts be in writing and signed by the parties involved. This typically includes contracts involving the sale of land, contracts that cannot be performed within a year, and promises made in consideration of marriage, among others.
An oral agreement that should be in writing according to the statute of frauds is not necessarily illegal or void from the outset but may be unenforceable if one party chooses to void it. If the parties choose to complete the transaction under the oral agreement and neither party asserts the statute of frauds, it may be possible to enforce the contract under principles like part performance or estoppel, which can sometimes overcome the statute's requirements.