# data[].attributes.body
Our client, Dr. Delia Dorado, seeks advice regarding whether her employment contract, with the noncompete provision, is  enforceable. A covenant not to compete is an agreement to prevent an employee from engaging in activities that actually or potentially compete with the employee’s former employer.  Modern Env’ts, Inc. v. Stinnett, 561 S.E.2d 694, 695 (N.C. 2002).  In North Carolina, restrictive covenants are disfavored restraints on trade. Modern Env’ts, Inc. v. Stinnett, 561 S.E.2d 694, 695 (N.C. 2002). But a court will enforce such a covenant if it is reasonable and the parties agreed to it. Worrie v. Boze, 62 S.E.2d 876, 882 (N.C. 1951). Although Dr. Dorado printed, rather than signed, her name to the contract, a court will likely conclude that she agreed to its terms and that the terms were reasonable.

# data[].attributes.body
Our client, Dr. Delia Dorado, seeks advice regarding whether her employment contract, with the noncompete provision, is  enforceable. A covenant not to compete is an agreement to prevent an employee from engaging in activities that actually or potentially compete with the employee’s former employer.  Modern Env’ts, Inc. v. Stinnett, 561 S.E.2d 694, 695 (N.C. 2002).  In North Carolina, restrictive covenants are disfavored restraints on trade. Modern Env’ts, Inc. v. Stinnett, 561 S.E.2d 694, 695 (N.C. 2002). But a court will enforce such a covenant if it is reasonable and the parties agreed to it. Worrie v. Boze, 62 S.E.2d 876, 882 (N.C. 1951). Although Dr. Dorado printed, rather than signed, her name to the contract, a court will likely conclude that she agreed to its terms and that the terms were reasonable.

# data[].attributes.body
Our client, Dr. Delia Dorado, seeks advice regarding whether her employment contract, with the noncompete provision, is  enforceable. A covenant not to compete is an agreement to prevent an employee from engaging in activities that actually or potentially compete with the employee’s former employer.  Modern Env’ts, Inc. v. Stinnett, 561 S.E.2d 694, 695 (N.C. 2002).  In North Carolina, restrictive covenants are disfavored restraints on trade. Modern Env’ts, Inc. v. Stinnett, 561 S.E.2d 694, 695 (N.C. 2002). But a court will enforce such a covenant if it is reasonable and the parties agreed to it. Worrie v. Boze, 62 S.E.2d 876, 882 (N.C. 1951). Although Dr. Dorado printed, rather than signed, her name to the contract, a court will likely conclude that she agreed to its terms and that the terms were reasonable.

# data[].attributes.body
Our client, Dr. Delia Dorado, seeks advice regarding whether her employment contract, with the noncompete provision, is  enforceable. A covenant not to compete is an agreement to prevent an employee from engaging in activities that actually or potentially compete with the employee’s former employer.  Modern Env’ts, Inc. v. Stinnett, 561 S.E.2d 694, 695 (N.C. 2002).  In North Carolina, restrictive covenants are disfavored restraints on trade. Modern Env’ts, Inc. v. Stinnett, 561 S.E.2d 694, 695 (N.C. 2002). But a court will enforce such a covenant if it is reasonable and the parties agreed to it. Worrie v. Boze, 62 S.E.2d 876, 882 (N.C. 1951). Although Dr. Dorado printed, rather than signed, her name to the contract, a court will likely conclude that she agreed to its terms and that the terms were reasonable.

# data[].attributes.body
North Carolina law states that “Nocontract . . . limiting the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina shall be enforceable unless such agreement is in writing duly signed.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4 (2012). 

# data[].attributes.body
(1)	North Carolina law states that “No contract . . . limiting the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina shall be enforceable unless such agreement is in writing duly signed.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4 (2012).   

# data[].attributes.body
(2)  The common law further allows that, where ambiguity exists as to whether an agreement is signed, courts should “consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether defendant signed the document.”  New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Inc., v. Martinez, 136 N.C. App. 642, 646, 525 S.E.2d 487, 490 (2000).

# data[].attributes.body
When a party prints his or her name on a contract out of habit or preference without indicating an intentional repudiation of the terms, the printed name is sufficient.

# data[].attributes.body
North Carolina common law provides guidance in interpreting how the statute applies to a printed name, holding that “a printed name may constitute a sufficient signature.” Yaggy v. B.V.D. Co. Inc., 7 N.C. App. 590, 598, 173 S.E.2d 496, 501 (1970).

# data[].attributes.body
First, Dr. Dorado’s printed name on the contract constitutes a “duly signed” contract and the covenant not to compete is likely enforceable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rule statement (printing names): When a party prints his or her name on a contract out of habit or preference without indicating an intentional repudiation of the terms, the printed name is sufficient.

# data[].attributes.subject
Rule statement (printing names): When a party prints his or her name on a contract out of habit or preference without indicating an intentional repudiation of the terms, the printed name is sufficient.

# data[].attributes.body
In our case, Dr. Dorado printed her name in both a blank intended for identification and in a blank intended for authentication of the terms of the agreement.  The extrinsic evidence reveals that Dr. Dorado also printed her name on other forms, including the Employee Agreement, a W-4 form, and a retirement plan.  While W-4 forms are typically intended for identification and general informational purposes, both the Employee Agreement and retirement plan were documents that required acknowledgment and assent to their terms.  Dr. Dorado’s printed signature on those forms constitutes authentication of the policies set forth by each.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rule statement (printing names cont.): North Carolina common law provides guidance in interpreting how the statute applies to a printed name, holding that “a printed name may constitute a sufficient signature.” Yaggy v. B.V.D. Co. Inc., 7 N.C.App. 590, 598, 173 S.E.2d 496, 501 (1970).

# data[].attributes.subject
Rule statement (printing names cont.): North Carolina common law provides guidance in interpreting how the statute applies to a printed name, holding that “a printed name may constitute a sufficient signature.” Yaggy v. B.V.D. Co. Inc., 7 N.C.App. 590, 598, 173 S.E.2d 496, 501 (1970).

# data[].attributes.body
The defendant in New Hanover alleged that her printed name was insufficient to create a binding covenant not to compete because, while she printed her name on a blank space intended for purposes of identification, she purposely left blank a space labeled “signature.”  The Court of Appeals held that this ambiguity necessitated a review of the case’s extrinsic evidence.  The evidence suggested the defendant consistently printed her name in blanks intended for identification, but signed in cursive when the blank was intended as a space to acknowledge and assent to the terms of the document.

# data[].attributes.body
North Carolina common law provides guidance in interpreting how the statute applies to a printed name, holding that “a printed name may constitute a sufficient signature.” Yaggy v. B.V.D. Co. Inc., 7 N.C.App. 590, 598, 173 S.E.2d 496, 501 (1970).

# data[].attributes.body
The common law further allows that, where ambiguity exists as to whether an agreement is signed, courts should “consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether defendant signed the document.”  New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Inc., v. Martinez, 136 N.C. App. 642,646, 525 S.E.2d 487, 490 (2000).

# data[].attributes.body
Whena party prints his or her name on a contract out of habit or preference without indicating an intentional repudiation of the terms, the printed name is sufficient.

# data[].attributes.body
In Yaggy, the parties formed an agreement to convey land, but the defendant argued no binding contract existed because the document contained only defendant’s printed name, not his signature. The Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff, holding that signing a document simply means affixing one’s name thereto with the intent of authenticating the document. Accordingly, a signature may be written or printed on a contract to qualify as “duly signed.”  Yaggy, 7 N.C. App at 597-98, 173 S.E.2d at 501-02.

# data[].attributes.body
Whena party prints his or her name on a contract out of habit or preference without indicating an intentional repudiation of the terms, the printed name is sufficient.

# data[].attributes.body
The fact that Dr. Dorado printed her name, rather than signed her name in cursive, does not negate her agreement to the terms of the contract, specifically the covenant not to compete.

# data[].attributes.body
First, Dr. Dorado’s printed name on the contract constitutes a “duly signed” contractand the covenant not to compete is likely enforceable.

# data[].attributes.body
n Yaggy, the parties formed an agreement to convey land, but the defendant argued no binding contract existed because the document contained only defendant’s printed name, nothis signature. The Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff, holding that signing a document simply means affixing one’s name thereto with the intent of authenticating the document. Accordingly, a signature may be written or printedon a contract to qualify as “duly signed.”Yaggy, 7 N.C. App at 597-98, 173 S.E.2d at 501-02.

# data[].attributes.headline
Explanation (printing names): In Yaggy, the parties formed an agreement to convey land, but the defendant argued no binding contract existed because the document contained only defendant’s printed name, nothis signature. The Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff, holding that signing a document simply means affixing one’s name thereto with the intent of authenticating the document. Accordingly, a signature may be written or printedon a contract to qualify as “duly signed.”Yaggy, 7 N.C. App at 597-98, 173 S.E.2d at 501-02.

# data[].attributes.subject
Explanation (printing names): In Yaggy, the parties formed an agreement to convey land, but the defendant argued no binding contract existed because the document contained only defendant’s printed name, nothis signature. The Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff, holding that signing a document simply means affixing one’s name thereto with the intent of authenticating the document. Accordingly, a signature may be written or printedon a contract to qualify as “duly signed.”Yaggy, 7 N.C. App at 597-98, 173 S.E.2d at 501-02.

# data[].attributes.headline
Explanation (printing names): The common law further allows that, where ambiguity exists as to whether an agreement is signed, courts should “consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether defendant signed the document.”  New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Inc., v. Martinez, 136 N.C. App. 642,646, 525 S.E.2d 487, 490 (2000).

# data[].attributes.subject
Explanation (printing names): The common law further allows that, where ambiguity exists as to whether an agreement is signed, courts should “consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether defendant signed the document.”  New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Inc., v. Martinez, 136 N.C. App. 642,646, 525 S.E.2d 487, 490 (2000).

# data[].attributes.headline
Explanation (printing names): The defendant in New Hanoveralleged that her printed name was insufficient to create a binding covenant not to compete because, while she printed her name on a blank space intended for purposes of identification, she purposely left blank a space labeled “signature.”  The Court of Appeals held that this ambiguity necessitated a review of the case’s extrinsic evidence.  The evidence suggested the defendant consistently printed her name in blanks intended for identification, but signed in cursive when the blank was intended as a space to acknowledge and assent to the terms of the document.

# data[].attributes.subject
Explanation (printing names): The defendant in New Hanoveralleged that her printed name was insufficient to create a binding covenant not to compete because, while she printed her name on a blank space intended for purposes of identification, she purposely left blank a space labeled “signature.”  The Court of Appeals held that this ambiguity necessitated a review of the case’s extrinsic evidence.  The evidence suggested the defendant consistently printed her name in blanks intended for identification, but signed in cursive when the blank was intended as a space to acknowledge and assent to the terms of the document.

# data[].attributes.headline
Explanation (printing names): Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendant’s printed name on the agreement not to compete did not constitute authentication of the document. New Hanover, 136 N.C. App. at 646-47, 525 S.E.2d at 490-91.

# data[].attributes.subject
Explanation (printing names): Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendant’s printed name on the agreement not to compete did not constitute authentication of the document. New Hanover, 136 N.C. App. at 646-47, 525 S.E.2d at 490-91.

# data[].attributes.headline
Application (printing names): In our case, Dr. Dorado printed her name in both a blank intended for identification and in a blank intended for authentication of the terms of the agreement.  The extrinsic evidence reveals that Dr. Dorado also printed her name on other forms, including the Employee Agreement, a W-4 form, and a retirement plan.  While W-4 forms are typically intended for identification and general informational purposes, both the Employee Agreement and retirement plan were documents that required acknowledgment and assent to their terms.  Dr. Dorado’s printed signature on those forms constitutes authentication of the policies set forth by each.

# data[].attributes.subject
Application (printing names): In our case, Dr. Dorado printed her name in both a blank intended for identification and in a blank intended for authentication of the terms of the agreement.  The extrinsic evidence reveals that Dr. Dorado also printed her name on other forms, including the Employee Agreement, a W-4 form, and a retirement plan.  While W-4 forms are typically intended for identification and general informational purposes, both the Employee Agreement and retirement plan were documents that required acknowledgment and assent to their terms.  Dr. Dorado’s printed signature on those forms constitutes authentication of the policies set forth by each.

# data[].attributes.body
| (1)  North Carolina law states that “No contract . . . limiting the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina shall be enforceable unless such agreement is in writing duly signed.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4 (2012).

# data[].attributes.body
The defendant in New Hanoveralleged that her printed name was insufficient to create a binding covenant not to compete because, while she printed her name on a blank space intended for purposes of identification, she purposely left blank a space labeled “signature.”  The Court of Appeals held that this ambiguity necessitated a review of the case’s extrinsic evidence.  The evidence suggested the defendant consistently printed her name in blanks intended for identification, but signed in cursive when the blank was intended as a space to acknowledge and assent to the terms of the document.

# data[].attributes.body
| North Carolina common law provides guidance in interpreting how the statute applies to a printed name, holding that “a printed name may constitute a sufficient signature.” Yaggy v. B.V.D. Co. Inc., 7 N.C. App. 590, 598, 173 S.E.2d 496, 501 (1970).

# data[].attributes.body
n our case, Dr. Dorado printed her name in both a blank intended for identification and in a blank intended for authentication of the terms of the agreement.  The extrinsic evidence reveals that Dr. Dorado also printed her name on other forms, including the Employee Agreement, a W-4 form, and a retirement plan.  While 
W-4 forms are typically intended for identification and general informational purposes, both the Employee Agreement and retirement plan were documents that required acknowledgment and assent to their terms.  Dr. Dorado’s printed signature on those forms constitutes authentication of the policies set forth by each

# data[].attributes.headline
In Yaggy, the parties formed an agreement to convey land, but the defendant argued no binding contract existed because the document contained only defendant’s printed name, not his signature. The Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff, holding that signing a document simply means affixing one’s name thereto with the intent of authenticating the document. Accordingly, a signature may be written or printed on a contract to qualify as “duly signed.”  Yaggy, 7 N.C. App at 597-98, 173 S.E.2d at 501-02.

# data[].attributes.subject
In Yaggy, the parties formed an agreement to convey land, but the defendant argued no binding contract existed because the document contained only defendant’s printed name, not his signature. The Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff, holding that signing a document simply means affixing one’s name thereto with the intent of authenticating the document. Accordingly, a signature may be written or printed on a contract to qualify as “duly signed.”  Yaggy, 7 N.C. App at 597-98, 173 S.E.2d at 501-02.

# data[].attributes.body
| (1)  The common law further allows that, where ambiguity exists as to whether an agreement is signed, courts should “consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether defendant signed the document.”  New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Inc., v. Martinez, 136 N.C. App. 642, 646, 525 S.E.2d 487, 490 (2000).

# data[].attributes.body
Unlike the defendant in New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Dr. Dorado did not print her name for identification purposes and sign her name for authentication purposes.  Rather, the facts seem to show that Dr. Dorado’s standard procedure was to print her name, regardless of the document’s purpose. It therefore appears likely, in light of the common law’s interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4, that Dr. Dorado’s printed name will not invalidate the covenant not to compete.

# data[].attributes.body
The defendant in New Hanover alleged that her printed name was insufficient to create a binding covenant not to compete because, while she printed her name on a blank space intended for purposes of identification, she purposely left blank a space labeled “signature.”  The Court of Appeals held that this ambiguity necessitated a review of the case’s extrinsic evidence.  The evidence suggested the defendant consistently printed her name in blanks intended for identification, but signed in cursive when the blank was intended as a space to acknowledge and assent to the terms of the document.

# data[].attributes.body
5. The fact that Dr. Dorado printed her name, rather than

signed her name in cursive,

does not negate her

agreement to

the terms of the contract, specifically the

covenant not to compete

.

# data[].attributes.body
Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendant’s printed name on the agreement not to compete did not constitute authentication of the document. New Hanover, 136 N.C. App. at 646-47, 525 S.E.2d at 490-91.

# data[].attributes.body
In our case, Dr. Dorado printed her name in both a blank intended for identification and in a blank intended for authentication of the terms of the agreement.  The extrinsic evidence reveals that Dr. Dorado also printed her name on other forms, including the Employee Agreement, a W-4 form, and a retirement plan.  While W-4 forms are typically intended for identification and general informational purposes, both the Employee Agreement and retirement plan were documents that required acknowledgment and assent to their terms.  Dr. Dorado’s printed signature on those forms constitutes authentication of the policies set forth by each.

# data[].attributes.body
Unlike the defendant in New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Dr. Dorado did not print her name for identification purposes and sign her name for authentication purposes.  Rather, the facts seem to show that Dr. Dorado’s standard procedure was to print her name, regardless of the document’s purpose. It therefore appears likely, in light of the common law’s interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4, that Dr. Dorado’s printed name will not invalidate the covenant not to compete.

# data[].attributes.body
First, Dr. Dorado’s printed name on the contract constitutes a “duly signed” contract and the covenant not to compete is likely enforceable.

# data[].attributes.body
| The fact that Dr. Dorado printed her name, rather than signed her name in cursive, does not negate her agreement to the terms of the contract, specifically the covenant not to compete.

# data[].attributes.body
In our case, Dr. Dorado printed her name in both a

blank intended for identification and in a blank intended

for authentication of the terms of the agreement.  The

extrinsic evidence reveals that Dr. Dorado also printed

her name on other forms, including the Employee Agreement, a W-4 form, and a retirement plan.  While

W-4 forms are typically intended for identification and

general informational purposes, both the Employee

Agreement and retirement plan were documents that

required acknowledgment and assent to their terms.  Dr.

Dorado’s printed signature on those forms constitutes authentication of the policies set forth by each.