The memoranda or writings required by the statute must show an existing and binding contract, a concluded agreement, a meeting of the minds of the parties as distinguished from mere negotiations. It is an incomplete contract where the parties have left an essential part of the agreement for future determination. Farrell v. Simons, supra; Griffin Grocery Co. v. Kingfisher Mill Elevator Co., 168 Okla. 157, 32 P.2d 63; American Natl. Bank of Oklahoma City v. Ardmoreite Pub. Co., 123 Okla. 225, 253 P. 81, 37 C.J.S. Statute of Frauds § 180, p. 663. If the memoranda or writings are afterwards lost or destroyed, the contents thereof may be proved by oral testimony after a proper foundation has been laid. 49 Am.Jur., Statute of Frauds, § 315, p. 630; 2 Corbin on Contracts, § 529, p. 790. The question of whether the memoranda, letters or other writings relied upon are sufficient to constitute a contract or agreement which meets the requirements of the statute is one for the court to determine as a matter of law.

Although without a timely-filed certiorari petition of its own, no party will be permitted to secure vacation or modification relief, any party may defend against another party's quest for certiorari by pressing those errors in the Court of Appeals' pronouncement which, when rectified, would sustain that court's decision as correct in its result.A certiorari respondent who brings no counter-petition stands in a posture restricted to the defense of the relief granted, but nothing prevents that party from offering arguments in support of the relief's correctness.Woolfolk v. Semrod, Okla., 351 P.2d 742, 745 (1960); see Oklahoma Water Resources Bd. v. Texas County, Okla., 711 P.2d 38, 67 n. 48 (1984); Matter of Estate of Bradshaw, Okla., 606 P.2d 578, 580 (1980); Nilsen v. Tenneco Oil Co., Okla., 614 P.2d 36, 39 (1980); Short v. Guy Nall Trucking Co., Okla., 442 P.2d 497, 499 (1968); Great American Reserve Ins. Co. of Dallas v. Strain, Okla., 377 P.2d 583, 589 (1963); American Nat. Bank v. Ardmoreite Pub. Co., 123 Okla. 225, 253 P. 81, 83 (1927); Bruner v. Eaton, 121 Okla. 209, 249 P. 734, 735 (1926); Muskogee Refining Co. v. Waters-Pierce Oil Co., 89 Okla. 279, 215 P. 766, 767 (1923). See also, ANNOTATION, EFFECT OF PARTY'S FAILURE TO CROSS-APPEAL ON SCOPE OF APPELLATE REVIEW AS TO CONTENTIONS OF A PARTY RELATING TO JUDGMENT BELOW-SUPREME COURT CASES, 63 L.Ed.2d 911 (1980).

We agree with the Appellees' analysis of appellate procedure, and therefore must review the trial court's ruling. Short v. Guy Nall Trucking Co., Okla., 442 P.2d 497 (1968); Woolfolk v. Semrod, Okla., 351 P.2d 742 (1960); and American Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City v. Ardmoreite Pub. Co., 123 Okla. 225, 253 P. 81 (1927). Also see Gumerson v. Farha, Okla.App., 538 P.2d 617 (1975).

If, however, the trial court abused its discretion in permitting plaintiff to file a verified reply at that stage of the proceedings, then we should disregard the filing of the reply and hold that the giving of Instructions Nos. 20 and 21 was not error. The successful party may, without cross-appeal or assigning errors, save the judgment by showing that errors were committed against him below which, if corrected, will make the result reached below correct. American National Bank of Oklahoma City v. Ardmoreite Publishing Co., 123 Okla. 225, 253 P. 81, 82. Under provisions of 12 O.S. 1951 § 317[ 12-317], the trial court is empowered to permit amendments, before or after judgment, in furtherance of justice, on such terms as may be proper.

A correct judgment will not be reversed simply because it was rendered on an erroneous theory. In the case of American Nat. Bank v. Ardmoreite Publishing Co., 123 Okla. 225, 253 P. 81, this court said: "The successful party may, without cross-appeal or assigning errors, save the judgment by showing that errors were committed against him below which, if corrected, will make the result reached below a correct result."

The successful party may, without appealing or assigning errors, save the judgment by showing that errors were committed against him below which, if corrected, will make the result reached below a right result. Voorhees v. Arnold, 108 Iowa 77, 78 N.W. 795; State ex rel. Owens v. Consolidated Ind. School Dist. 188 Iowa 959, 176 N.W. 976; Muskogee Ref. Co. v. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. 89 Okla. 279, 215 P. 766; American National Bank of Oklahoma City v. Ardmoreite Pub .Co. (Okla.) 253 P. 81, at page 83. Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal and his resistance and objections to the application to return the record for correction, contains grounds showing that the defects in the certificates to the record are such as affect the jurisdiction of the District Court as an appellate Court.

"A written contract, in order to satisfy the statute of frauds, must be a complete contract, and no part of the contract can rest in parol." To the same effect is American National Bank v. Ardmoreite Publishing Co., 123 Okla. 225, 253 P. 81; Hall v. Haer, 160 Okla. 118, 16 P.2d 83; and Francis v. Hamra, 112 Okla. 105, 240 P. 76. The check relied on as a sufficient written instrument to relieve the alleged contract from the application of the statute of frauds is clearly insufficient. It does not describe the land, specify the consideration, fix the duration of the contract, nor indicate its term.

It is the rule that a successful party may, without cross-appeal or assigning error, save the judgment by showing that errors were committed against him below, which, if corrected, will make the result reached below correct. American Nat. Bank v. Ardmoreite Publishing Co., 123 Okla. 225, 253 P. 81; Naill v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America, 103 Okla. 179, 299 P. 833. We are of the opinion, however, that the record does not show error in failing to sustain such plea and motion of the interpleader.

"The general rule is, the party not appealing will not be heard to urge for review errors committed against him in the trial court in order to modify in any manner a judgment in his favor, but said party on appeal may attack erroneous rulings of the trial court in order to sustain his judgment." This case was followed in the case of American National Bank v. Ardmoreite Publishing Co., 123 Okla. 226, 253 P. 81, wherein it is said: "The successful party may, without cross-appeal or assigning errors, save the judgment by showing that errors were committed against him below which, if corrected, will make the result reached below a correct result."