In State of California v. Haslett Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 252, state officers agreed to lease a building to Haslett, who then spent $ 2 million on improvements. The lease agreement was held void because violative of the statute of frauds and because it had not been approved by the officer designated by statute. The court held that these statutes, designed to protect the public against improvident or secret action, would be thwarted by application of an estoppel; therefore, an estoppel could not be raised to render effective the oral agreement to make the lease. ( Id., at pp. 257-258.)