after several unsuccessful attempts to settle the matter amicably, randolph sued jorgensen, then turnedandrews and reminded him of his commitment to back up jorgensen in the event of default. leonard andrews denied liability, claiming he had no idea that his gesture of good faith offering to back up jorgensen could result in his being held legally responsible for jorgensen's debt. as you might imagine, alan randolph had a somewhat different view of the original agreement between himself and 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 coul