Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Corbin v. Langdon, 23 N.C. App. 21, 26, 208 S.E.2d 251, 254 (1974). The three requisite elements to form an enforceable contract are offer, acceptance, and consideration. Cap Care Grp., Inc. v. McDonald, 149 N.C. App. 817, 822, 561 S.E.2d 578, 582 (2002). Consequently, we must consider whether each element exists to determine whether a modified employment contract was formed between Plaintiff and U.S. Foods. “It is essential to the formation of any contract that there be mutual assent of both parties to the terms of the agreement so as to establish a meeting of the minds.” Harrison v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 170 N.C. App. 545, 550, 613 S.E.2d 322, 327 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Wooten v. S.R. Biggs Drug Co., 169 N.C. 64, 68, 85 S.E. 140, 142 (1915) (<HOLDING>). As such, a contract modification must also 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law (B) recognizing that an implied contract must result from a meeting of the minds of the parties in mutual assent to the terms and must be based upon a sufficient consideration free from fraud or undue influence not against public policy and sufficiently definite to be enforced (C) holding that the one thing without which a contract cannot be made  is the assent of the parties to the agreement the meeting of the minds upon a definite proposition (D) holding that a valid contract requires a meeting of minds that gave rise to an obligation situation or state of law resulting from an agreement and that created certain expectations on the basis of which the parties acted (E) holding mutual assent in contract law is elementary and it must be expressed by the parties
Output (English): holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law