Answer:
There is a contract but a unilateral one.
Explanation:
There is a contract but a unilateral one.
Employee incentive plan “to enable the Company to attract and retain experienced individuals" is an offer ,to which the extended stay of Toney is the acceptance. And, naturally, Citynet is obligated to fulfill the "promise" promised. The plan is very much a contract with the above said offer and its acceptance that makes the promise binding and legally enforceable..
Consideration here is Toney's staying on the job.
On stay,the plan provided “cash out” of his or her entire vested balance ie.when an employee’s rights to a particular benefit become vested, they belong to that employee and cannot be taken away. The vested balance refers to the part of an account that goes with the employee if he or she leaves the company.
Nowhere, the amount to vest on voluntary termination , is left to the sole discretion of Citynet .
As such in the above case, Toney is right in suing Citynet for breach of contract as all the essential elements of a contract ,namely, valid offer and its acceptance and a legally acceptable consideration --are present to make the incentive plan and the promises contained therein, binding and enforceable on Citynet .