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
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 a contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will 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 holding that an employment contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will holding parties may create employment contract terminable only pursuant to its express terms by clearly stating intention to do so