Carol worked for All Safe Inc. an insurance company in Ottawa. When she signed her employment contract it stated if she left All Safe she could not work for another insurance company within the Metropolitan City of Ottawa for 12 months. Carol left All Safe and within a week worked for Central Insurance Co. in Gatineau. All Safe said that Gatineau was within the Metropolitans City of Ottawa so Carol could not work there. Carol said Gatineau was not part of the Metropolitan City of Ottawa. It turns out there is no clear definition of what is meant by the term "Metropolitan City of Ottawa." As a result a court would most likely
A) rule in favour of All Safe because it had drafted Carol's employment contract
B) rule in favour of All Safe because it had a right to protect its business
C) rule in favour of Carol because she needed to earn a living
D) rule in favour of Carol because the clause was confusing and she is not the one who drafted it
E) both A and B
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q2: Which of the following could be used
Q3: Which of the following statements is FALSE?
Q4: What was the basis of the court's
Q5: Which of the following is NOT a
Q6: In interpreting a contract, the court does
Q8: Which of the following statements is TRUE?
Q9: A clause in an agreement states: "There
Q10: Which of the following may be a
Q11: Contra Proferentem means:
A)where there is an ambiguity
Q12: Which of the following would a company
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents