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
D
You might also like to view...
After determining the accountabilities of a particular job, the next step in measuring results is to determine specific objectives
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
When transparency is practiced in a business,
A) employees know how their retirement fund is being invested B) intellectual property is protected C) the fair use doctrine is in effect D) none of the above