Multiple Choice
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
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q72: The effect of an arbitration clause in
Q73: On March 26, 2008, William and his
Q74: Factoring of accounts receivable is an example
Q75: A venue clause determines which of the
Q76: In a contract between The Bay and
Q78: Jason agrees to buy a computer for
Q79: Which of the following statements is TRUE?
Q80: The Supreme Court recently made an exception
Q81: The parol evidence rule:<br>A)Absolutely bars all oral
Q82: Courts cannot add an implied term into