Which scenario could lead to a contract being rendered unenforceable?

In the context of contract law, an oral contract for the purchase of significant assets could lead to a situation where the contract is rendered unenforceable due to the Statute of Frauds. This legal principle requires certain types of contracts, particularly those involving significant values, to be in writing to be enforceable. When significant assets are involved, such as real estate or high-value goods, the expectations of documentation and formal agreement are heightened to protect both parties involved in the transaction. Without written evidence, it may be challenging to prove the terms of the agreement or even that an agreement was made, leading to enforceability issues.

In contrast, a written contract signed by both parties usually indicates mutual consent and clear terms, making it enforceable under standard contract law principles. Similarly, a contract that includes clear terms and definitions provides clarity and understanding for all parties involved, reinforcing its enforceability. Lastly, both parties agreeing to a change in terms could potentially modify the contract but does not inherently render it unenforceable, provided the changes are documented and agreed upon formally. Thus, the oral nature of the contract in relation to significant assets leads to its potential unenforceability.