This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court denying plaintiff’s writ of mandamus to compel the defendants, directors of Brookings-Harbor School District No. 17-C, to renew plaintiff’s teaching contract for the 1971-72 school year.

The primary issue presented is whether the notice which defendants sent to plaintiff was legally sufficient under ORS 342.513. ①

Plaintiff was employed as a full-time teacher for the district for the 1970-71 school year. Plaintiff was a nontenured teacher, and was therefore ineligible for a three-year contract under the existing law. On March *215 15,1971, defendants sent plaintiff a form notice, which read in pertinent part as follows:

*216 Plaintiff contends that the above notice is ambiguous and does not as a matter of law adequately notify plaintiff of defendant’s intention not to rehire her.

One of the principal purposes of ORS 342.513 is to provide a specific date (March 15) on which a teacher will know whether or not a contract for the following school year will be offered to him or her. ORS 342.513 does not specify any particular form of notice of intention not 'to rehire, and, therefore, any language in a timely written notice which fairly and reasonably informs the teacher that the district does not intend to renew the contract for the next year is sufficient. Krahl v. Unified School District, 212 Kan 146, 509 P2d 1146 (1973). Por a general discussion concerning statutory notice requirements, see, Annotation; 92 ALR2d 751 (1963).

It is our conclusion that the above notice fairly informed plaintiff that the contract under which she was teaching would not be renewed for the following school year, and was legally sufficient under ORS 342.513. We construe the language “did not rehire, but position held and re-evaluation made in May,” as meaning that plaintiff was not to he rehired hut that the board would hold the position open until aftér a reevaluation of the matter in May. In other words plaintiff was notified that as of March 15 the hoard had decided not to renew plaintiff’s contract, hut that the hoard would take another look at the matter in May.

We cannot accept plaintiff’s argument that the promise to reevaluate in May had the effect of modifying or vitiating the previous clause “did not rehire.” The language in the notice about reevaluation in May merely indicated to plaintiff that there was a possibility of rehiring her following the reevaluation in *217 May. As the court said in Krahl v. Unified School District, supra, the language which indicated that there was a possibility of reemployment at a later date did not dilute the essential character of the notice that the existing contract was not renewed.

Plaintiff has cited several cases in support of her position. We have examined these decisions and note that each of them is factually distinguishable from the case at bar.

Affirmed.