This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: illusory promise that they did not have to follow for themselves. Heye also argues that since the contract was unilateral there was no bargain to decide on the terms. AGC argues that there was legal value because Heye agreed to follow the terms of the employee handbook on March 1999, in return she would be hired as an employee. AGC did not have a duty to hire Heye and Heye did not have to follow the handbook, by trading these values it was considered the bargain between Heye and AGC. Conclusion No the consideration was not enforceable because it did not meet the elements of consideration. AGC was able to not follow promises on its contract of arbitration at will, but Heye was forced to do so, which made the AGC policy an illusory promise....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.
- Spring '11
- Business Law