• Sarah Bellum is a young lawyer who is being recruited to teach at Cosmopolitan University School of Law.
• Sarah signs a contract to begin teaching at CUSL at an annual salary of $300,000.
• The contract provides that Sarah's employment will begin on August 1, and it has the following clause:

Prior to [August 1], the Employee [Sarah] shall provide to the Administration all documentation and other materials necessary to demonstrate that:

(1) he/she is an American citizen or otherwise authorized to engage in lawful employment in the United States;

(2) he/she possesses a Juris Doctorate degree from an American Bar Association-accredited law school or an equivalent foreign law degree; and

(3) he/she has been admitted to the practice of law in at least one American or foreign jurisdiction.

• The contract also provides that no modification to the contract may be made except in writing signed by Sarah and by the Human Resources Vice President of CUSL.
• As of August 1, Sarah, who has been doing a lecture tour in the Far East, fails to supply any of these documents.
• But, Sarah is, in fact, an American citizen, earned her law degree, and is a member of the bar.
• CUSL's hiring committee has no reason to doubt those facts, but there is no documentation in the file.
• On August 2, CUSL notifies Sarah that the contract is terminated since she did not get her documents in by August 1.
• Sarah had turned down a number of lucrative offers from other schools, and it is now too late to get a job for the year.
• Sarah sues.
• It becomes apparent that the reason that Sarah's contract was terminated was that the CUSL administration discovered a massive budget shortfall and no longer wanted to pay Sarah under the contract.

What do you think are probably the arguments for each side on whether such testimony should be allowed?