to instruct the jury on the elements and formation of a contract. We review jury instructions for an abuse of discretion. Klisch v. Meritcare Med. Group, 134 F.3d 1356, 1358 (8th Cir.1998). ‘When reviewing jury instructions, this court’s review is limited to whether the instructions, viewed on the whole, fairly and adequately represent the evidence and applicable law in light of the issues presented to the jury in a particular case.” Id. (citation omitted) In this case, the district court instructed the jury that there “must be an offer by one side that is accepted and agreed to by the other.” (Appellant’s App. at 493.) The district court’s jury instruction is consistent with the instruction approved of in Crain Industries, Inc. v. Cass, 305 Ark. 566, 810 S.W.2d 910, 915-16 290 (1957) (<HOLDING>). Although Mann Brothers agrees with the
holding that a contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will recognizing that a contract which is incomplete uncertain or indefinite in its material terms will not be specifically enforced in equity 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 parties may create employment contract terminable only pursuant to its express terms by clearly stating intention to do so