One of the reasons that the statute of frauds requires that certain contracts be in writing is because proof of the contract (and the terms within) is easier than if the contract is verbal, but written contracts are sometimes several pages long and contain legal terms that may mean something that most of us do not understand. If you were entering into a contract, would you rather have a written contract that was several pages long and that you might have to spend some time reading to understand or a verbal contract that you and the other party have discussed and that you understand from that discussion? Why? Would the content of the contract make a difference? Have you ever bought something, paid for it, and arranged to have it delivered to you at a later date? That is a fairly typical transaction, and, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a delivery contract is created. However, it is a little complicated to determine when you become the complete owner of the thing purchased. First, when the contract is made and the purchase price is paid, the title to the item purchased is transferred to you, the purchaser. The UCC says that title is ownership, so you become the owner when the contract is signed and the purchase price is paid. However, only when the item purchased is actually delivered to you does the risk of loss pass to you. Why is that two-step process (i.e., [1] title is transferred to you when the purchase price is paid, and [2] then risk of loss is transferred to you when the good is delivered to the purchaser) necessary or helpful? Both responses must be at least 200 words in length. No references or citations are necessary.