Harold Perdue entered an individually negotiated employment contract with Nicholas Paynter. Under terms of the contract, Perdue was to work for Paynter as a private investigator in Paynter's newly established firm, known as Eye-Spy Investigations.

The employment contract was on a trial basis and was to last for nine months. That nine-month period was set to begin one month after Paynter had set up shop. However, Paynter could not begin his operation until the contractors finished remodeling his office. Johnson Contractors, Ltd., had promised to have the office completed within one to three months.

One month after the contract had been finalized, Paynter notified Perdue that he had hired someone else and that his services were no longer needed. Perdue, who had relied on the contract, had turned down several other lucrative offers that had since been filled by other operatives.

Moreover, Perdue was now having trouble getting a similar job. Perdue threatened to bring suit against Paynter. Paynter told Perdue to go ahead and sue.

Privately, Paynter believes that he is immune to a lawsuit because, since Johnson Construction had three months to finish remodeling the office, the contract could not have been performed within one year.

Perdue argued that, because Johnson could have finished in less than one month, the contract could be performed within a year, and it did not have to be in writing to be enforceable. Who is correct here? Explain.