as you might imagine, alan randolph had a somewhat different view of the original agreement between himself his partners. when jorgensen defaulted, randolph fully expected leonard andrews to step in and provide financial assistance. when andrews refused, randolph then sued both andrews and jorgensen. the question, of course, is whether there was ever an enforceable contract between randolph and andrews to pay for jorgensen's debt, or simply a verbal understanding that's not enforceable. >> jorgensen's promise to pay for the partnership agreement, which randolph agreed to sell, is clearly enforceable even though it's oral. but andrews' promise by which he guaranteed to pay for the interest if jorgensen could not raises a different problem. >> so we have two people promising to pay money to the seller. the first promise, the buyer's promise, what we call the original promise, is enforceable even though it was oral. the guarantor's promise, what we call the collateral promise, is enforceable only if it was in writing. that's a pretty significant distinction, and we ought to make sure we unders