A group of title agencies (“Olympic Group”) and a title reinsurance company (“ACE”) engaged in negotiations to form a joint venture. Both parties exchanged agreement drafts over several months and both took steps toward finalizing the agreement, including Olympic Group’s beginning of the process of acquiring a title company. ACE sent Olympic Group a final draft and ACE’s COO told Olympic Group that ACE would sign the agreement after Olympic finished the acquisition process. 

One week after Olympic Group purchased the title company, ACE informed Olympic Group that it no longer wished to proceed with the joint venture. Olympic Group sued ACE for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and promissory estoppel to enforce the agreement. ACE filed for summary judgment and claimed the unsigned agreement could not be enforced under the statute of frauds. The trial court found in favor of ACE, but the court of appeals reversed and held that ACE was estopped from using the statute of frauds as a defense because of its misrepresentation that it would sign the contract. ACE then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. How do you think the high court ruled? Why?