Facts: F applies for a job as adjunct faculty at a college. During an interview he asks D the director of the program how much flexibility faculty have in determining how they teach their courses. F is applying to teach a writing course. He explains that he wants to teach it as a workshop rather than a lecture course and he would need some flexibility to adjust topics as the workshop proceeds. He gives examples from prior teaching assignments. D expresses no objection to these examples. He says that instructors in his program often take different approaches to teaching even when teaching different sections of the same course. The main requirement D says is that they adhere to the goals and objectives adopted for the course in question. D leaves with the clear impression that if hired he will have sufficient flexibility to take a workshop approach. This is based only on the oral interview; there is no written agreement. He is later offered a job and takes it. Some weeks later when he turns in his draft syllabus for his class he is told that he must specify every graded assignment and every due date for the semester. Due dates might be adjusted if needed but the content of each assignment must be specified in advance. At this point it appears that the oral interview left the issue of flexibility unclear. Based on his conversation with D F believed that he would have leeway to assign topics as he went along (on the clearly understood proviso that he adhere to course goals and objectives). D evidently understood something different. Is there a contract here? What legal principles determine the answer?