[Pedicurist license] Briana applied for a job at Nedra’s salon as a pedicurist and signed an employment contract with Nedra. The contract contained a provision that stated, “Employee cannot be terminated for poor performance without prior notice and thirty days to improve performance.” After Briana worked for Nedra for two months, Nedra noticed Briana did not follow standard public health procedures for pedicures. Nedra called the state licensing agency and found out that Briana’s pedicurist license had expired ten years ago. Nedra’s state requires that, in order to protect public health, all pedicurists must be licensed by the state in order to perform pedicures at salons within the state. Briana claimed that, according to the explicit terms of the contract, Nedra could not terminate her for poor performance without first giving her notice and thirty days to improve her performance. 81) Is the employment contract’s provision, that Briana cannot be terminated without notice and thirty days to improve, likely enforceable? A) No, because the purpose of the statute was to control the number of pedicurists in the state. B) Yes, because it was ratified by two months of performance. C) No, because the licensing statute in that state is intended to protect public health, and the agreement would most likely be deemed illegal and unenforceable. D) Yes, because licensing statutes are meant to provide revenue to the state and the proper remedy for an unlicensed professional is a fine. E) Yes, because the contract can be severed and it is not relevant that the law requires a license to protect the public. 82) If Briana subsequently obtains a valid license, would her agreement with Nedra be enforceable? A) Yes, because the contract can be severed. B) Yes, but only if she pays the licensing fee. C) No, because employment contracts cannot be severed. D) Yes, but only if Nedra did not deem the contract voidable. E) No, because the agreement was illegal and is void. 83) Rabbi Dave, who strictly follows Sabbath law, purchased a golf club online on Friday morning. His account was set to the default status, under which payment is made at the time of shipping. Unbeknownst to Dave, shipment is made on Saturday, in violation of Sabbath law. On Monday morning, Dave notices an email that payment was made on Saturday. Dave calls the company, claiming that the agreement is illegal and should be rescinded. Is he correct? A) No, all states have Sabbath laws that make it illegal to enter into a contract on a Sabbath day, however, fully performed contracts created on a Sabbath day cannot be rescinded. B) Yes, though not all states have Sabbath laws that make it illegal to enter into a contract on a Sabbath day, any contract created on a Sabbath day can be rescinded. C) No, some Sabbath laws make it illegal to enter into a contract on a Sabbath day, however, fully performed contracts created on a Sabbath day cannot be rescinded. D) Yes, all states have Sabbath laws that make it illegal to enter into a contract on a Sabbath day. E) No, but only because the contract was not fully executed. [Amazing Fabrics] Amazing Fabrics, owned by Peri, has provided top-quality draperies, tablecloths and other linens to many of Chicago’s high-end hotels for decades. Peri has an employment contract with his top designer, Calvin, which states that, if Calvin leaves Amazing Fabrics, he is prohibited from working for any competitor and that the clause remains effective even if the business is sold to new owners. Peri decides to sell his business to Lisette and retire. The contract for the sale of the business includes a clause that Peri shall not open a business that competes with Amazing Fabrics anywhere in the Chicago metropolitan area for two years. A year after signing the contract, Peri realizes he is bored in his retirement and opens Fine Fabrics, which provides tablecloths and other linens to Chicago area restaurants and hotels. Peri calls Calvin and persuades him to leave Amazing Fabrics and work for Peri. Many of Lisette’s customers prefer to work with Calvin and move their business to Peri’s new company. Lisette wants to sue both Peri and Calvin for breach of contract. 84) What would likely be the outcome of Lisette’s breach of contract claim against Peri? A) Lisette would likely be successful because covenants not to compete in conjunction with the sale of a business are generally enforceable and Lisette’s contract was for a reasonable length of time and a reasonable location. B) Lisette would likely be successful because covenants not to compete in employment contracts are generally enforceable and Lisette’s contract was for a reasonable length of time and a reasonable location. C) Peri would likely be successful because, although covenants not to compete in conjunction with the sale of a business are generally enforceable, Lisette’s contract was unreasonable in that it would have restricted Peri from opening any business. D) Peri would likely be successful because covenants not to compete in employment contracts are generally enforceable and Lisette’s contract was for a reasonable length of time and a reasonable location. E) Peri would likely be successful because covenants not to compete in conjunction with the sale of a business are generally not enforceable. 85) Assuming covenants not to compete in employment contracts are legal in their state, would Lisette likely be able to enforce the contract against Calvin? A) Yes, because Calvin is working for a competitor, his employment contract specifically states that it remains in effect if the business is sold to a new owner, and the covenant not to compete is reasonable. B) Yes, because the covenant not to compete protects a legitimate business interest. C) Yes, because Calvin is working for a competitor. D) No, because the covenant not to compete does not contain a period of time and geographic area that are reasonable. E) Yes, because Calvin is working for a competitor and his employment contract specifically states that it remains in effect if the business is sold to a new owner. Â Â