Order, order! by https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph Structuring legal arguments en-us 2020-10-14 15:11:07 UTC 2026-03-17 08:20:34 UTC hello@padlet.com umbrella paragraph https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/829020118 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. ]]> 2020-10-14 15:19:32 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/829020118 umbrella paragraph mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/829031833 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. ]]> 2020-10-14 15:21:56 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/829031833 umbrella paragraph mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/829054400 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. ]]> 2020-10-14 15:26:54 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/829054400 umbrella paragraph mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/829054804 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. ]]> 2020-10-14 15:27:00 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/829054804 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832843071 2020-10-15 15:45:43 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832843071 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832847803 2020-10-15 15:46:49 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832847803 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832854584 2020-10-15 15:48:17 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832854584 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. https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832854883 2020-10-15 15:48:21 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832854883 Rule Statement https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832855870 2020-10-15 15:48:34 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832855870 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832856354 2020-10-15 15:48:41 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832856354 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832857582 2020-10-15 15:48:57 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832857582 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). https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832861359 2020-10-15 15:49:52 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832861359 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832866021 2020-10-15 15:50:56 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832866021 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832866153 2020-10-15 15:50:58 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832866153 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832867948 2020-10-15 15:51:26 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832867948 Issue https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832868483 2020-10-15 15:51:34 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832868483 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832870696 2020-10-15 15:52:06 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832870696 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832871748 2020-10-15 15:52:20 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832871748 Issue https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832873762 2020-10-15 15:52:48 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832873762 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832876606 2020-10-15 15:53:28 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832876606 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832878957 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. ]]> 2020-10-15 15:54:02 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832878957 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832881754 2020-10-15 15:54:40 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832881754 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832882651 2020-10-15 15:54:53 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832882651 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832885662 2020-10-15 15:55:33 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832885662 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. https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832886149 2020-10-15 15:55:39 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832886149 Rule Explanation and Application https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832886924 2020-10-15 15:55:51 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832886924 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). https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832887977 2020-10-15 15:56:05 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832887977 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. https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832889389 2020-10-15 15:56:26 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832889389 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. https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832890956 2020-10-15 15:56:47 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832890956 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. https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832894301 2020-10-15 15:57:32 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832894301 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832895270 2020-10-15 15:57:45 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832895270 Rule Statement https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832896111  | (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).   ]]> 2020-10-15 15:57:57 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832896111 Rule Explanation https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832897656  | 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).]]> 2020-10-15 15:58:17 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832897656 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. https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832901870 2020-10-15 15:59:17 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832901870 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832902699  | (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).]]> 2020-10-15 15:59:29 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832902699 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832904171 2020-10-15 15:59:49 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832904171 Application https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832904703 2020-10-15 15:59:56 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832904703 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832905152 2020-10-15 16:00:02 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832905152 Conclusion https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832905202 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
.
]]> 2020-10-15 16:00:03 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832905202 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832906373 2020-10-15 16:00:19 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832906373 Rule Application https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832907968 2020-10-15 16:00:43 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832907968 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832909917 2020-10-15 16:01:11 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832909917 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832910520 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. ]]> 2020-10-15 16:01:20 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832910520 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832911138 2020-10-15 16:01:29 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832911138 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832912923  | 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.]]> 2020-10-15 16:01:56 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832912923 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832919937 2020-10-15 16:03:33 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832919937 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832925868 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.
]]> 2020-10-15 16:04:47 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/odh9vu2iu3ewi7ph/wish/832925868