A few days ago, we commented on whether contract language adequately indicates a choice that employment is for a term (not at-will).
Tettamble attempts to apply interpretative guidelines–somewhat tedious ones–formulated long-ago. In brief, they require contract language be very clear if it is to opt-out of the default principle that employment is at-will. Where a tedious, counter-intuitive interpretative principle is long-standing, it is helpful to assess the context in which the principle developed. If the contextual legal framework has changed, would it not make sense to re-assess the tedious, counter-intuitive principle?
… More after the break