Nadia, the president of xyz co., and ramon orally agreed that ramon would work as a computer programmer for xyz co. for a three-year period. their oral agreement also covered other matters such as his pay and the availability of one week of paid vacation. on the day he talked with nadia, ramon signed an employee handbook including a provision that his employment was at will, meaning that at any time he could quit or the company could discharge him. a month later, ramon received a three-year contract for employment with xyz co. in the mail incorporating the amount of his salary and other issues he had discussed with nadia. ramon signed it and mailed it back, but he changed the vacation provision to three weeks instead of one week. brenden, the human resources manager for xyz co. called ramon after receiving the agreement and told ramon that the contract was only a draft for discussion purposes and that he was actually firing ramon because he seemed to focused on vacation. assuming the court follows the reasoning of the court in the dispute discussed in the text involving michael gallagher and medical research consultants, which of the following would be the most likely result in the dispute between ramon and xyz co. if ramon claims he had a three-year contract of employment?
a. as a matter of law, since the contract was sent to ramon, he received a guarantee of employment for three years; but he does not get the extra weeks of vacation he inserted
b. xyz co. will win because although the three-year oral agreement for employment was initially enforceable, ramon reopened negotiations by altering the later contract to provide that he was to receive three weeks of vacation
c. xyz co. will win because even if a three-year oral agreement for employment was made, it would not have been enforceable because the statute of frauds requires that agreements that cannot be completed within one year be in writing. further, the draft ramon returned was not signed by xyz co.
d. xyz co. will win because as a matter of law, no other document can alter the provisions of an employee handbook
e. a jury will decide if nadia orally agreed to a three-year contract; and, if so, ramon gets his job back along with the extra weeks of vacation