Answer the case questions one and two.

CALEY V. GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORP ed States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 28 F.3d 1359 (2005), Case Background Gu resolution policy (DRP). It employees. It said the DR round Gulfstream adopted a disa ORP). It mailed the policy to all ORP would be the only proce- utes between Gulfstream and egin in two weeks and would be ed employment. For employ- work at Gulfstream, they had to P as a condition of employment. A group ved. contending that there was no con- employees. It would "a condition of continu. accept the DRP as a cong of employees sued, conten tract, so the DRP could ne Case Decision Hull, Circuit Judge accepting the contract. Thus, the DRP plainly consti- tuted an offer.... to resolve disputes between G 2. Acceptance The plaintiffs also contend that they cannot be deemed to have accepted the terms of the DRP simply by their continued employment, even to continue to work at Gulfstream though the DRP expressly provides that continued employment is the proper means of acceptance. However, we agree with the district court that the be DRP could not be enforced. The district employees accepted the DRP through continued employment.... held for Gulfstream. The employees appealed. An offer maybe accepted ... either by a promise to do the thing contemplated therein, or by the actual doing of the thing. However, the offer must be accepted in the manner specified by it; and if it calls for a prom- ise, then a promise must be made; or if it calls for an 1. Offer The plaintiffs argue that the DRP does not act, it can be accepted only by the doing of the act..... constitute an offer. We disagree. An offer is the By specifying the manner of acceptance as continued manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, employment and announcing that the DRP was a con- So made as to justify another person in understand- dition of employment, the DRP and accompanying let- ter plainly set forth ing that his assent to that bargain is invited and will two options for Gulfstream conclude it. Restatement (Second) of Contracts, $ 24. employees: (1) continue in employment, thereby The DRP clearly states that it is a contract, establishes accepting the DRP, or (2) terminate employment. Thus, given these two options, the employees remaining in the terms of the contract, and explains the means of * * * 220 Fall. LILIT mediation costs. These prom- pay the arbitration and mediation costs. The ises constitute bargained for consideration. Affirmed. Questions for Analysis Gulfstream's employ after notice of the DRP was an unambiguous act of acceptance of the DRP....! 3. Consideration The plaintiffs next argue that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because there is no bargained for consideration for their relin- quishment of trial rights. They argue that the employees got nothing in return. This argument is unavailing. Georgia law provides that mutual promises and obligations are sufficient consideration to support a contract. Here, the plaintiffs received reciprocal promises from Gulfstream to arbi- trate and be bound by arbitration in covered claims. In addition, the DRP provides that Gulfstream will 1. The appeals court held that continued employment was evidence of acceptance of the offer and employ- ment was consideration. Because the employees were already working, why was there consideration? Was there a change in anything? 2. If the case had come out the opposite, how could an employer change the terms of the working arrange- ment (contract)? Catorceable Promises without consideration under certain circumstances, the court