James Hairston, Individually and Next Friend of E.H, a Minor v. Southern Methodist University, and Brent Erwin
441 S.W.3d 327
Tex. App.2013Background
- Hairston alleges SMU verbally offered a full athletic scholarship in May 2007; no written scholarship existed.
- Hairston enrolled spring 2009 after high school, learned of approximately $25,000 tuition due, and was told by SMU there was no scholarship.
- April 11, 2009, Hairston and her father signed a written agreement providing $17,585 for Spring 2009 and stating no athletic aid for 2009–2010.
- Hairston sues for fraud in the inducement, detrimental reliance, breach of contract, and IIED; SMU asserts statute of frauds and accord/ satisfaction defenses, and counters for past due fees.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in SMU’s favor on all grounds; judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IIED claim viability | Hairston asserts intentional distress from SMU's conduct in denying aid. | SMU contends conduct not extreme/outrageous and distress not severe. | IIED rejected; not extreme/outrageous enough. |
| Statute of Frauds applicability | Oral promise could be enforceable via exceptions. | Oral agreement not enforceable; cannot be performed within one year; no writing. | Statute of Frauds applies; no enforceable oral contract. |
| Promissory estoppel exception | Equitable reading could save oral promise. | No writing at promise time; exceptions not shown. | Promissory estoppel not established to override statute. |
| Partial performance and accord/ satisfaction | Partial performance could remove claim from statute. | April 11, 2009 writing constitutes accord/satisfaction for 2009–2010; bars claim. | Accord and satisfaction precludes the 2009–2010 claim; partial-performance exception not established for full relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004) (gap-filler tort; extreme conduct threshold)
- Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. 1993) (extreme/outrageous standard)
- Kroger Tex. Ltd. P'ship v. Subaru, 216 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006) (standard for extreme/outrageous conduct)
- Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. 1998) (IIED elements and thresholds)
- Moore Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 492 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1972) (promissory estoppel elements in SOF context)
- Breezevale Ltd. v. Breezevale, 82 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2003) (partial performance exception to SOF)
- Nagle v. Nagle, 633 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. 1982) (promissory estoppel requirements)
- Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2000) (accrual of accord and satisfaction defense)
- Jenkins v. Henry C. Beck Co., 449 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1969) (accord and satisfaction concepts)
- Young v. Ward, 917 S.W.2d 506 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996) (contract duration; statute of frauds analysis)