Opinion ID: 2778157
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-Acceptance

Text: TCP suggests that Bahr was put on notice that her entitlement to any bonus was indefinite when CFO Valerie Campbell sent a company-wide email on December 21, 2011, stating that the “ability . . . to pay bonuses will not be determined until the books are completely closed for the year which would be sometime in January.” (R. 45-11, Bonus Ltr., PageID # 1448). Contracts may be revoked by words or conduct that is inconsistent with the intent to honor a promise. Feges, 483 N.W.2d at 708. However, the intent to revoke must be clearly communicated to the offeree; the general dissemination of information that may or may not be perceived as inconsistent with the offer is insufficient. See id. (finding that the offers made in an employee handbook had not been revoked simply upon the issuance of a revised handbook that explicitly disclaimed any intent to contract). Campbell’s December 12, 2011, company-wide email was not a clear revocation or modification of the C&I Bonus Plan. Notably, the email distinguished employees on a “defined bonus plan” from the general population of employees by noting that the holiday bonus would be “considered an advance on [their] official bonus.” (R. 45-11, Bonus Ltr., PageID # 1448.) Under these circumstances, Bahr reasonably surmised that the December 21 email did not impact her rights under her “defined bonus plan.” Cf. Feges, 483 N.W.2d at 708 (distinguishing 15 No. 14-3356 between employees who received a handbook that was an offer to contract followed by one that was not, and those employees who only received the latter). For this reason, the December 21 email was not sufficiently clear to revoke, amend, change, cancel, or modify, the C&I Bonus Plan or Bahr’s individual award thereunder.