CHAPTER 11: NATURE AND TERMINOLOGY 7
11–8A. Interpretation of contracts
No, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to interpret the meaning of the bonus term in this prob-
lem. When a dispute arises over the meaning of a term in a contract, a court will enforce it ac-
cording to its obvious terms if the contract’s writing is clear. Under the plain meaning rule, the
meaning of the term is determined from the written document alone. If a term is ambiguous, a
court can consider extrinsic evidence.
In this problem, Lehman Brothers, Inc., (LBI) offered Mary Ortegón a job. The offer in-
cluded an annual “minimum bonus” of $350,000. The bonus was to be paid unless Ortegón quit
or was terminated for certain causes. The bonus was clearly tied to Ortegón’s performance on
11-9A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS—Unilateral contracts
(a) The court issued a summary judgment in favor of IBM, holding that there was no
contract between the parties because they had not agreed on the commission arrangement.
Jensen appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the judg-
ment of the lower court. The appellate court acknowledged that “[a]n employer can make a uni-
lateral offer to its employees, and the offer becomes a contract when its conditions are fulfilled.”
be paid a bonus if the company does well, without being promised specific amounts.”
(b) Citing the quota letter, the court concluded that “IBM did not invite a bargain or
manifest a willingness to enter into a bargain. To the contrary, it manifested its clear intent to
preclude the formation of a contract.” Under the terms displayed on the intranet and stated in
the letter, IBM indicated that Jensen could not rely on the description of potential commissions
in the SIP brochure because “IBM could modify or cancel the Sales Incentive Plan at any time.