Question

In Rooney v. Tyson (1998), did the oral contract between Rooney and Tyson to train Tyson "for as long as the boxer fights professionally" establish a definite duration, or did it constitute employment for an indefinite duration within the scope of the at-will rule?

Yes. The oral contractual language is capable of being determined without any recording and is sufficient to satisfy an employment term of definite duration.
No. Only written contracts are capable of being sufficient to satisfy an employment term of definite duration.
No. Although oral contracts may satisfy the requirements to establish an employment term of a definite duration, the length of the specific contract in question was not sufficiently definite.

Answer 1

The oral contract in Rooney v. Tyson did not establish a definite duration and did not satisfy the at-will rule.

Step-by-step explanation:

In Rooney v. Tyson (1998), the oral contract between Rooney and Tyson to train Tyson "for as long as the boxer fights professionally" did not establish a definite duration and did not satisfy the at-will rule. The Court held that although oral contracts may establish an employment term of a definite duration, the length of the specific contract in question was not sufficiently definite.