X has been an employee of ABC Company for over 10 years. On July 10, 2016, management at ABC told all employees in a meeting that each employee who had been employed for at least one year as of July 10, 2016 would receive a $10,000 end-of-the-year bonus in their last paycheck for the year on December 23, 2016. Again, in the company newsletter on September 22, the company repeated the news about the $10,000 bonus that would be paid to employees. The newsletter explained that the bonus was being paid for all their hard work in the last year which put ABC ahead of their competitors in total U.S. sales for the first time ever. ABC was experiencing the most profitable year in the company's history. On October 22, X decided to surprise his family with the purchase of a new travel trailer that cost him $12,000. On December 20, 2016, ABC Company sent an email to all employees saying there would be no end-of-the-year bonus paid to any employees. The company CEO had decided instead to buy a luxurious yacht for his family and take a 3-month vacation to travel on his yacht around the world. X sought the legal opinion of a friend (not an attorney) who suggested he sue the company for the $10,000. His friend suggested X should sue for breach of contract for the $10,000 he was to receive at the end of 2016, as promised by the company.

If a court were to rule against X in the breach of contract lawsuit, what legal rule(s)/theory(ies) might X be able to use in court that would still allow him to win the $10,000 bonus the company promised to pay him even though, according to the court, there was no legally enforceable contract? Explain thoroughly. Name the applicable rule(s)/theory(ies), thoroughly define/explain them, apply them to the facts and explain how you reached your conclusion.