Crain counsels that a proper contract instruction communicates an “objective theory” of contract law. Id. at 916 (citation omitted). We believe that the district court provided an “objective theory” of contract law under Arkansas law and did not abuse its discretion. Having reviewed the jury instructions on the whole, we conclude that they fairly and accurately represent the evidence and applicable Arkansas law in light of the issues presented to the jury- Potlatch next argues that the district court erred when it provided the following jury instruction: Where a contract contains no express ag ., 773 F.2d 987, 989 (8th Cir.1985) (under Arkansas law, only a contract of an indefinite duration may be terminated at will); Griffin v. Erickson, 277 Ark. 433, 642 S.W.2d 308, 310 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Delong v. Rucker, 227 Ark. 869, 302 S.W.2d
holding that under new york law employment is atwill unless the duration of an employment contract is set forth explicitly 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 holding that where an oral contract was removed from the statute of frauds by clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law the defendant could not terminate the contract at its will only a contract of indefinite duration may be so terminated  holding that an employment at will agreement is an enforceable contract until terminated by either party holding that an employment contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will