For several years, AutoZone sponsored events conducted by Professional Bull Riders (PBR). For the years 2001 and 2002, PBR prepared a written agreement to provide for AutoZone’s sponsorship. Section I of that agreement states: The term of this agreement shall commence as of December 29, 2000, and end on December 31, 2002, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, AutoZone may, at its option, elect to terminate this Agreement and its sponsorship of PBR and the Series effective as of the end of the Finals in 2001, by giving PBR written notice of termination by no later than August 15, 2001. AutoZone never signed this agreement. However PBR alleges that by its actions, AutoZone tacitly accepted its terms set forth in the proposed written agreement and that, as a result, the parties entered into an oral agreement on the terms set forth in writing. In January 2002, AutoZone notified PBR that AutoZone would not be sponsoring PBR events in 2002. However, despite this notice, PBR allegedly continued to use AutoZone’s trademark and service mark in connection with its programs. PBR then sued AutoZone for breach of the oral sponsorship agreement. Was this agreement unenforceable because of the statute of frauds?