Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the contract is of a type usually put in writing, whether it needs a formal writing for its full expression, whether it has few or many details, whether the amount involved is large or small, whether it is a common or unusual contract, whether a standard form of contract is widely used in similar transactions, and whether either party takes any action in preparation for performance during the negotiations.” Horsfield Const., Inc. v. Dubuque County, Iowa, 653 N.W.2d 563 (Iowa 2002) (quoting Restatement (Seoond) op CONTRACTS § 27 cmt. c). b. Analysis of letter of intent The court first notes that the language of the letter of intent clearly contemplates a subsequent, final contract. Paragraph 9 of the letter of intent reads as follows: 9. Form of lting Group, Inc., 494 N.W.2d at 444-45 (<HOLDING>); Air Host Cedar Rapids, Inc. v. Cedar Rapids 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no enforceable contract where letter specified it was a letter of interest only and is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement  (B) holding that issuing a letter of counseling and a letter of reprimand was not a materially adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim because the letter contained no abusive language andinstead contained jobrelated constructive criticism which can prompt an employee to improve her performance (C) holding that a loi that is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement was nothing more than an invitation to attempt to reach an agreement of sale and not an enforceable contract based on offer and acceptance (D) holding that  1823e does not apply to a claim relating to a letter of credit a letter of credit is a liability not an asset (E) holding that an addendum letter was a new contract because it modified a prior lease agreement
Output (English): holding that issuing a letter of counseling and a letter of reprimand was not a materially adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim because the letter contained no abusive language andinstead contained jobrelated constructive criticism which can prompt an employee to improve her performance