With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Dauer, 413 So.2d at 63 (involving a condemnation against a landowner after it had rejected the State’s offer for a traditional sale). This case, however, presents substantially different circumstances. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the seller not only consented to the condemnation, it specifically sought condemnation when a traditional -sale appeared unlikely. Mclver suggested that condemnation would achieve the best possible price because the property’s value would be based on its highest and best use, and St. Joe agreed to pursue condemnation. While Wilson may apply where the condemnation was involuntary — we do not decide that question here — we do not believe it was intended to apply where the property owner authorized t 554 F.2d 719, 724 (5th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); Willamette-Western Corp. v. Lowry, 279 Or.

A: holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract
B: holding that evidence regarding the existence of an oral contract and its subsequent modification supported the jurys verdict
C: holding that some evidence was presented to support the jurys verdict that defendant breached contract and therefore trial court did not err in denying defendants motion for directed verdict or jnov
D: holding that a motion denying summary judgment will not be reviewed on appeal from a jury verdict where sufficient evidence supports the jurys verdict
B.