Kucha sold a house to Pilder for $75,293. The agreement was in writing, as required by the Statute of Frauds. As part of the contract, Kucha agreed to pay for the remodeling of the sun porch.

However, when Kucha found out that it would cost $12,728 to do the remodeling, he refused to sell the property.

Pilder sued to compel Kucha to go through with the deal. Kucha argued that under the circumstances the court could not force him to sell under any equitable remedy. Was Kucha correct? Why or why not?