• One of the major justifications for the at-will presumption is, as theGreenecourt pointed out, its consistency with the parties' usual expectations. The idea here is that, since the parties have to express contractually their preference for something other than an at-will relationship, their failure to do so results in a default to the at-will presumption. Does the at-will presumption make sense, why or why not? Is the "silence indicates preference" justification appropriate? Should a different presumption exist, and if so, what should it be?