Opinion ID: 2174538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Implied-In-Fact Argument.

Text: In Cannon, we held that a contractual obligation may be found even if it was not the employer's intention that its handbook confer contractual rights. 422 N.W.2d at 640. French argues that there were disputed fact issues on the mutual manifestations of assent, Duhme v. Duhme, 260 N.W.2d 415, 419 (Iowa 1977), which underlies this theory, and therefore it was error to grant summary judgment. French points to a paragraph of the handbook that, he claims, anticipates that the actual practices and customs at the Dahl's store may imply terms supplementing, or even contradicting, those contained in the handbook. The paragraph he relies on stated: This handbook does not contain all of the information you will need during the course of employment. You may receive additional information through various written notices as well as orally.... We do not agree with French's interpretation of this paragraph, especially in view of the language of the handbook that expressly prohibits modification except under limited circumstances. That provision states: No policy or practice of the Company should be construed to change this [at-will] relationship. Only corporate officers have the right to modify or change this practice, and such action must be in writing. The oral statements relied on by French to vary the written provisions of the handbook were not made in writing, nor were they made by officers of the corporation. In fact, they appear to have been merely offhand comments by supervisory personnel with virtually no probative value on the question of Dahl's' right to terminate without cause. The mutual manifestation of assent necessary to establish an implied-in-fact contract, Duhme, 260 N.W.2d at 419, is missing. It is clear that the employer did not assent to implied modification of its handbook and in fact strongly resisted it.