Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the statement “good employees are taken care of’ was too ambiguous to be a promise of permanent employment
• holding that as matter of law statements made by employer to employee were too indefinite to form an offer for a unilateral contract
• holding that statements made by employer to employee were too indefinite to form an offer for a unilateral contract
• holding that an employer’s comment that “good employees are taken care of” was “not ‘clear and definite’ enough to support a claim for promissory estoppel”
• holding that the court’s analysis of clear and definite as to the modification of a contract was dispositive as applied to a claim for promissory estoppel
• holding that a company’s statement to employees that “there would be no dismissals as long as people showed willingness to work” were policy statements of goodwill insufficient to create an offer of employment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).