Choice "D" is correct. A contract was formed between Kram and Fargo because Kram made a valid offer and Fargo made a valid acceptance of that offer. Under the Statute of Frauds, contracts involving interests in real property are enforceable only if their material terms are set forth in a writing signed by the party sought to be held liable. The original signed offer from Kram would be a sufficient writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds if Fargo is seeking to enforce the contract. Since Fargo accepted by telephone, there is no writing signed by Fargo. Thus, the contract could be enforced against Kram, but could not be enforced against Fargo due to the lack of a signed writing by Fargo.
Choices "a" and "b" are incorrect because they state that no contract was formed. There was a contract. The Statute of Frauds does not make oral contracts invalid, it only makes them unenforceable.
Choice "c" is incorrect because the contract could not be enforced against Fargo. A real estate contract is within the Statute of Frauds, and a contract within the Statute of Frauds generally is enforceable against a party only if that party signed a written memorandum containing the material terms of the contract.