Copano Energy, LLC v. Stanley D. Bujnoch, Life Estate, 593 S.W.3d 721

Landowners previously granted Copano a 30-foot easement for a 24" pipeline and were later approached about a second 24" line and an additional 20-foot easement.
Parties exchanged multiple emails: Dec 7 emails from Copano’s landman (Sanford) described proposed easement terms in future-tense as preparation for a December meeting; Jan 30 emails show Sanford stating “Copano agrees to pay your clients $70.00 per foot” and Schwartz replying that they accept “in reliance.”
February communications from Copano’s agents contained lower offers ($15–$40 per foot) and a preliminary “bubble plat”; some communications were inconsistent and no amended easements were executed.
Landowners sued Copano (and Kinder Morgan as successor) for breach of contract and tortious interference; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; court of appeals reversed as to breach of contract, finding emails could be read together to satisfy the statute of frauds.
Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals, holding the emails, even read together, did not show an agreement to be bound to the essential terms and thus failed the statute of frauds; a take-nothing judgment was rendered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the emails form an enforceable written contract for an easement under the statute of frauds?	The Dec 7 emails supply essential terms (location, size, workspace) and the Jan 30 emails supply price and acceptance; read together they form the required written memorandum.	The Dec 7 emails were forward-looking negotiation statements and no writing evidences Copano’s assent to those terms; statute of frauds bars enforcement.	No — emails do not show agreement to be bound to the Dec 7 terms; statute of frauds not satisfied.
May multiple writings be read together to satisfy the statute of frauds and did Jan 30 adopt Dec 7 terms?	Yes; courts may read multiple documents together, and Jan 30 acceptance incorporated prior terms.	Although writings can be read together, Jan 30 refers only to an earlier conversation and does not adopt the Dec 7 emails; there is no written confirmation of assent to those terms.	Although multiple writings can be combined in principle, here no writing demonstrates assent to the Dec 7 terms, so combination fails to establish a contract.
Do the emails contain a sufficient signature to meet the statute of frauds?	Manual typing of sender’s name on emails constitutes a signature.	Copano argued emails lacked a proper signature.	Court assumed for argument the signature requirement was met and did not decide the issue.

Cohen v. McCutchin, 565 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1978) (statute of frauds requires a written memorandum complete in every material detail).
Pick v. Bartel, 659 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. 1983) (easement is an interest in real estate governed by the statute of frauds).
City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2011) (court may determine as a matter of law that multiple documents comprise a written contract).
Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. 2000) (multiple instruments may be read together even if executed at different times).
Wilson v. Fisher, 188 S.W.2d 150 (Tex. 1945) (writings must contain essential terms with certainty so parol evidence is unnecessary).
FPL Energy, LLC v. TXU Portfolio Mgmt. Co., 426 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2014) (intent to be bound is a fundamental element of contract formation).
Southmark Corp. v. Life Inv’rs, Inc., 851 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1988) (forward-looking writings that contemplate future agreement do not satisfy the statute of frauds).