The jury had a right to conclude that, with a full knowledge of this custom, the parties had it in mind and contracted with reference to that term of service. Farmers' Union Co-Op. Clearance House of Rusk v. Guinn, 208 S.W. 362, 363 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1919, no writ); see Hoffrichter v. Brookhaven Country Club Corp., 448 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Turner, however, did not testify about the Foundation's specific custom or its practices in particular.

In the authorities cited by Dobson, the Statute of Frauds either did not apply or was satisfied; accordingly, the Statute of Frauds did not prevent the agreements from being enforceable. Hoffrichter v. Brookhaven Country Club Corp., 448 S.W.2d 843 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (alleged employment agreement was for three months; therefore, the Statute of Frauds did not apply); Culkin v. Neiman Marcus Co., 354 S.W.2d 397 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1962, writ ref'd) (written employment contract satisfied the Statute of Frauds). Dobson cannot avoid the Statute of Frauds' requirements by relying on the Molnar rule. Furthermore, there is another significant difference between the line of cases relied upon by Dobson and the case here. Factors given "controlling weight" in those cases were such surrounding circumstances as the sale of the home and the move of the employee and his family to the location of the new job. Dobson did not plead estoppel based on surrounding circumstances.

Good cause is essentially an employer's only defense in a breach of contract action when the employee has been employed for a definite period of time. Hoffrichter v. Brookhaven Country Club Corp., 448 S.W.2d 843 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1969, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Fairbanks, Morse and Co. v. Carsey, 109 S.W.2d 985 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1937, writ dism'd); 38 Tex.Jur.2d Master and Servant § 12 (1962). Lone Star asserts that it had good cause to discharge Wahl because his refusal to sign the contract amendment constituted a serious breach of an implied obligation of his employment contract and was a serious breach of loyalty to his employer.

It is generally held that an employment contract for a definite period may not be terminated by the employer during that period 'except for cause deemed good'. See Hoffrichter v. Brookhaven Country Club Corporation (Dallas Tex.Civ.App. 1969) 448 S.W.2d 843, error refused NRE. This is the rule; however, in the case at bar, this condition is explicitly provided for in the letter. In the instant case, the trial court withdrew the cause from the jury's consideration and entered judgment for the Defendant.