to municipalities or municipal corporations for all purposes.” Id. at 131 n. 2, 459 S.E.2d at 880 n. 2 (citation omitted). However, the court noted “for the purpose of determining the scope of the District’s power to enter into contracts, the law governing municipal corporations is applicable.” Id. (citations omitted); see also City of Beaufort v. Beaufort-Jasper Cnty. Water & Sewer Auth., 325 S.C. 174, 178-79, 480 S.E.2d 728, 731 (1997) (applying Cowart I to Beaufort-Jasper County Water and Sewer Authority, a special purpose district). In discussing contracts involving governmental or legislative powers, the opinions in Cowart I and Cowart II referenced not only municipalities but also “each governing body” and “the local governing body.” Cowart II, 324 S.C. at 241, 478 S.E.2d at 837 (<HOLDING>); Cowart I, 319 S.C. at 133, 459 S.E.2d at 881
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that for causes of action not time barred as of the date of the trustees appointment the limitation period is tolled for an additional two years from the date of appointment holding that the appointment of a public officer is a governmental function that cannot be impaired by an employment contract extending beyond the terms of the members of the local governing body holding that the terms of an employment contract are not entitled to presumptive reasonableness where the contract was ultimately rejected holding public bodies may not be bound by contracts without evidence of the contract terms in the minutes