With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of at-will employment to arise. See Guz, 24 Cal.4th at 336-44, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d at 365-71, 8 P.3d 1089. However, an implied-in-fact agreement not to terminate without good cause cannot arise when there is an express agreement providing that employment is at will. See id. at 337, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d at 366, 8 P.3d 1089 (“Where there is no express agreement, the issue is whether other evidence of the parties’ conduct [creates an implied-in-fact agreement].”). An implied-in-fact contract requiring cause for termination is fundamentally inconsistent with an express at-will contract, and the terms of the express contract cannot be rewritten by implications arising from later conduct. See Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler, & Marmaro, 35 Cal.App.4th 620, 630-31, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 329, 334-35 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Thus, because Plaintiff and Defendant had

A: holding as a matter of law that the existence of an expense reimbursement policy alone did not create an implied contract limiting the employers right to terminate an employee atwill
B: holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant
C: holding failure to establish terms of an oral loan agreement precluded the existence of a breach of contract claim
D: holding that the plaintiffs express atwill agreement precluded the existence of an implied contract requiring good cause for termination
D.