<span>The question is incomplete, here is the complete question which I previously came across;</span>
When Janice went to work as a hair stylist in Rick's beauty shop, she entered into an agreement with Rick, whereby, if she left she would not work for another beauty shop within 50 miles for 2 years. Rick trained Janice in a number of new techniques. After nine months, Janice was offered a great job down the street at a new beauty shop, quit Rick, and had a number of customers follow her down the street to her new job. Rick claimed that she had signed a contract and had no right to go to work at the new shop. Janice disagreed and told Rick that no judge in the country would enforce such an agreement. Janice told Rick that she was more worried about a customer, Treena, who was threatening to sue her because her hair turned green after Janice worked on it. Janice agreed that Treena's hair was damaged. Janice pointed out, however, that she told Treena that odd results could result from a dye attempt, and she required that Treena sign a contract releasing Janice from all liabilities before she did anything with Treena's hair. Treena, however, sued anyway. The agreement Rick and Janice entered into is referred to as?
The answer is, the agreement Rick and Janice entered into is referred to as "<span>covenant not to compete".</span>
<span>
</span>
It is hard
to decide if a judge will implement a non-competition agreement. While the privileged insights of a business are important,
the law additionally puts value to a person's opportunity to seek after other
work. To be enforceable Courts more often than not require that a contract not
to compete be sensible. In California, non-competes are adequately unlawful
except if you are selling a business. Different states will implement a few provisions,
as a rule the trade secret protection, however not the work limitations.
Answer:
Dana
Explanation:
According to my research on different bank responsibilities, I can say that based on the information provided within the question the bank is completely liable to Dana. This is because the bank has a responsibility to Dana since she is the one who signed to open the account, which in term is her. They must now let her know why they dishonored the check and provide a solution.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
A) Divisibility can easily be divided into smaller value.
I think at least 3-4
Dudhdhdhdhxhxjc
