With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contract, evidence of surrounding circumstances, or the payment of additional consideration”); Eales v. Tanana Valley Medical-Surgical Group, Inc., 663 P.2d 958, 959-960 (Alaska 1983) (stating that the rule that contract for permanent employment is at will unless supported by additional consideration is based on an unsound foundation); Coelho v. Posi-Seal Int'l, Inc., 208 Conn. 106, 544 A.2d 170, 176 (1988) (adopting position that absence of additional consideration does not invalidate a contract expressing intention that employment not be terminable at will); Shah v. American Synthetic Rubber Corp., 655 S.W.2d 489, 492, (Ky. 1983) (joining “a number of other jurisdictions” in following the rationale of Littell)-, Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, Inc., 486 A.2d 97, 99-100 (Me.1984) (<HOLDING>); Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d

A: holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties
B: holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will
C: holding that a contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will
D: holding parties may create employment contract terminable only pursuant to its express terms by clearly stating intention to do so
D.