Springob v. University of South Carolina, 757 S.E.2d 384

University of South Carolina (and Gamecock Club) distributed a brochure offering premium arena seating for a stated five-year term with specified fees ($5,000 year 1; $1,500 years 2–5).
Appellants paid years 1–5 and claim University employees orally promised that after year five they would only need to maintain club membership and pay face value for season tickets (no additional $1,500 fee).
University later demanded $1,500 per seat for year six; Appellants sued for breach of contract and specific performance.
Trial court granted summary judgment to University holding the agreement was barred by the statute of frauds (no signed writing). Appellants appealed.
Supreme Court: statute of frauds applies (five-year term cannot be performed within one year) and brochure/logo do not satisfy signature/essential-terms requirements, but found a genuine fact issue on equitable estoppel and reversed summary judgment on that ground; remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the agreement is subject to the statute of frauds	Agreement could be performed within one year or otherwise enforceable	Five-year term cannot be performed within one year; statute applies	Statute of frauds applies (five-year term cannot be performed within one year)
Whether brochure/correspondence (including logo) satisfy signed writing requirement	Brochure, payment records, letters and logo collectively constitute a signed writing	No formal signed contract; logo not a legal signature; writings do not state essential terms	No signed writing suffices; logo does not constitute signature and writings lack essential terms
Whether equitable estoppel prevents defendant from asserting statute of frauds	University’s oral promises induced payments and reliance; enforcement necessary to prevent injustice	Statute of frauds bars enforcement; no signed contract	Fact issue exists whether appellants reasonably and detrimentally relied on oral promise; summary judgment improper on estoppel claim
Whether part performance exception saves appellants' claim	Partial performance (payments) removes statute of frauds bar	Payments insufficient absent written contract or estoppel	Court did not decide part performance; remanded because estoppel issue dispositive

Bass v. Gopal, 395 S.C. 129, 716 S.E.2d 910 (summary judgment standard used on appeal)
Davis v. Greenwood Sch. Dist. 50, 365 S.C. 629, 620 S.E.2d 65 (statute of frauds requires written contract not performable within one year)
Roberts v. Gaskins, 327 S.C. 478, 486 S.E.2d 771 (possibility of performance within one year avoids statute of frauds)
Cash v. Maddox, 265 S.C. 480, 220 S.E.2d 121 (writings must establish essential terms without parol evidence)
Barr v. Lyle, 263 S.C. 426, 211 S.E.2d 232 (form of writing not material but must be signed)
Collins Music Co. v. Cook, 281 S.C. 580, 316 S.E.2d 418 (equitable estoppel can bar assertion of statute of frauds)
Atl. Wholesale Co. v. Solondz, 283 S.C. 36, 320 S.E.2d 720 (proof of oral contract required before estoppel applies)
Venable v. Hickerson, Phelps, Kirtley & Assocs., 903 S.W.2d 659 (logo not a sufficient signature)