Plaintiff Bullock appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his action for damages from respondent Deseret Dodge Truck Center, Inc., hereinafter called the Company, for breach of a written contract by terminating his employment as general manager of the company on January 13, 1959. He claims that the company agreed to employ him as such manager until the end of January of 1966.1
*3Plaintiff alleges that when the agreement was consummated he was living in Dallas, Texas, and in reliance on the contract he terminated his employment with the Chrysler Corporation, sold his home, moved his family to Salt Lake City, and thereby incurred expenses, a cut in salary, a loss of executive status, and other benefits. He *4does not plead nor does the record disclose any claim that there was any oral agreement, not merged in the written contract, that his employment should last to the date claimed.
A summary judgment must be supported by evidence, admissions and inferences which when viewed in the light most favorable to the loser shows that, “there is no genuine issue as to any material *5fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 2 Such showing must preclude all reasonable possibility that the loser could, if given a trial, produce evidence which would reasonably sustain a judgment in his favor.
Bullock urges two grounds for reversal: (1) the written agreement with its implications is sufficient to support a finding that the company agreed to employ him for more than eight years; (2) the company is estopped from relying on the statute of frauds as a defense.
(1) The written agreement would not support a finding that the company agreed to employ Bullock for the period of time claimed. The only express provision on that question recites that the “Company agrees to employ Bullock as its general manager.” It contains no statement whatever on the length of time such employment should last. Absent other controlling fact it is generally recognized that under such a provision either party may terminate the employment at will.3
There are other provisions regarding the purchase and sale of company stock which Bullock claims creates ambiguity in the contract and would allow parol evidence on the intention of the parties. He further contends that these provisions and the parol evidence admissible on the intention of the parties thereunder would authorize the court to find by implication 4 or estoppel 5 that the company agreed to employ Bullock for the duration claimed.
Thus, paragraph three of the contract gives Bullock the option to subscribe company stock during the month of January of each of the years of 1958 through 1966 as long as he is employed by the company. *6By paragraph five, if Bullock desires to sell any of his acquired shares of company, stock he must first offer .to sell them to Hinckleys, Inc. By paragraph six, if Hinckleys, Inc. desires to sell any or all of its company shares of stock, it must first offer to sell them to Bullock.
We find no ambiguity which suggests that this contract of employment is not terminable by either party at will, either under these stock purchase and sales provisions or otherwise. Nor does Bullock suggest that he could produce parol evidence to the contrary. Neither the fact that Bullock had an option to subscribe company stock within a specified period so long as he was employed by the company, nor the fact that Bullock agreed to first offer to Hinckleys, Inc. any company stock which he desired to sell, nor the fact that Hinckleys, Inc. agreed to first offer to Bullock any of its stock which it desires to sell, suggests that his employment could not be terminated at will. The fact that his option to subscribe to stock only existed as long as he was employed suggests that either party could terminate such employment at will. The fact that Bullock took this job at a reduction in salary, incurred expense in moving to Salt Lake City, and lost other benefits, would be a reason why he might insist on a provision in the contract for his employment for a specified period of time. However, since he failed to insist on such a recital in the written contract, these facts do not justify the finding that such provisions shall be added to the contract by implications or estoppel. In fact, since the contract did not specify any definite period of time for the duration of such employment, the implications are that either party could terminate the contract at will,6 and there is definitely nothing to indicate that such provision existed by reason of estoppel. Bear in mind that the estoppel which we refer to now is not the estoppel from reliance on the statute of frauds we discuss hereafter, but is the estoppel referred to in note five.
^ (2) The Company is not estopped' from relying on the statute of fraud. That statute provides that every agreement “that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from” the time of its making, “shall be void unless such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, is in writing subscribed by the parties to be charged therewith.”7
This presents an unusual situation. There is a written contract made in January, 1958, after the date of the agreement and just before the employment commenced, reciting that the company agrees to employ Bullock as its general manager, with no recital that the employment shall continue for any specified duration,. Had it *7contained such a provision, the statute of frauds would have had no application and plaintiff would have had no occasion to claim that the company is estopped from reliance on such statute. So, in order to claim such estoppel, Bullock must rely on an oral agreement which the statute of frauds would make void in order to involve the doctrine of estoppel from reliance on such statute. He must also show that such oral agreement was not merged in the written agreement as is usually the case where, as here, the written agreement covers the question involved. In such case in the absence of ambiguity, parol evidence is not admissible to vary the terms of the written contract or to show the intention of the parties.8
Plaintiff Bullock pleads and relies on the written contract. Nowhere in-his pleadings, affidavits, depositions or brief does he claim that there was an express oral agreement that the employment could not be terminated by either party within any specified period of time. He apparently claims that such oral agreement arose by implication or.by estoppel, the same as he claims such a provision by implication or estoppel under the written contract. All of the cases which Bullock relies on for es-toppel are based on an express oral agreement.9 Under these circumstances we conclude without an express oral agreement to the effect that the contract may not be terminated within one year, the doctrine of estoppel to rely on the statute of frauds has no application to this case.
We therefore conclude that as a matter of law plaintiff Bullock has no ground for recovery and the summary judgment was proper.
Affirmed. Respondent to recover his costs.
CROCKETT, C. J., and HENRIOD, McDonough and callister, jj., concur.'