True or False: An oral agreement can be enforceable if there is written confirmation directed toward the escrowee.

An oral agreement can indeed be enforceable if there is written confirmation directed toward the escrowee. This stems from the concept of partial performance or the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which can allow the enforcement of certain agreements that would typically require a written contract.

In real estate transactions, communications or confirmations that clarify the terms and intent of an agreement can support the enforceability of an oral deal, particularly when those communications are directed to a third party, such as an escrowee, who has a role in executing the transaction. This situation is commonly backed by the principles laid out in the Statute of Frauds, which generally requires certain agreements to be in writing to be enforceable. However, exceptions do exist, allowing for oral agreements to be binding if there is sufficient corroborating evidence, such as written confirmations, that affirm the agreement's existence and terms.

In some situations, other options may suggest conditions or limitations that are not universally applicable. The enforceability of oral agreements can vary by jurisdiction; however, the presence of written confirmation strengthens the case for enforceability across many areas. Therefore, stating that the initial claim is true is accurate in this context.