1/ please help me with these question (critical thinking)

m Kennedy v. Shave Barber Co. Court of Appeals of Georgia. 822 S.E.2d 606 (2018}. Facts Patricia Kennedy worked as a master barber tor The Shave. a barbershop in the Virginia-Highland neighborhood of Atlanta, Georgia. Under the terms of her employment contract, Kennedy agreed that, after leaving her employment, she would not work in the men's grooming industry \"within a three (3) mile radius of any SHAVE location\" for two years and would not solicit customers of The Shave for one year. Less than a month after quitting her position. Kennedy opened a new salon, "PK Does Hair,\" two miles lrorn The Shave. She solicited customers through social media accounts on which she posted photos originally posted on social media by The Shave. The Shave filed a suit in a Georgia state court against Kennedy, alleging a breach of the noncompete provision other employment contract. Kennedy argued that the geographic restriction in the noncompete provision was "unreasonable and uncertain." The court limited the geographic scope of the provision to a three-mile radius of The Shave's current location and issued an injunction in The Shave's favor. Kennedy appealed. Issue Was the court's reformation of the geographic scope of the noncompete provision reasonable? Decision Yes. A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court's order in favor of The Shave. "Kennedy is in violation of . . . the restrictive covenants which where specifically designed to protect The Shave from competition from its former employees and loss of its client base. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding the non-compete enforceable against Kennedy and in granting [an injunction] on this ground." Reason The Shave had a legitimate business interest in protecting itself from the risk that Kennedy might appropriate customers by taking advantage of the contacts developed while she worked at The Shave. The Shave had expended considerable resources in developing its name recognition and customer base. Most of The Shave's customers lived and worked within three miles of the Virginia-Highland location. The Shave had previously lost customers when two former employees opened competing barbershops within three miles. Based on the harm to The Shave's business if the noncompete provision was not enforced, the appellate court found the trial court's reformation of the provision 's geographic scope to be reasonable. The appellate court also concluded that the trial court had eliminated any uncertainty by limiting the scope to The Shave had expended considerable resources in developing its name recognition and customer base. Most of The Shave's customers lived and worked within three miles of the Virginia-Highland location. The Shave had previously lost customers when two former employees opened competing barbershops within three miles. Based on the harm to The Shave's business if the noncompete provision was not enforced, the appellate court found the trial court's reformation of the provision 's geographic scope to be reasonable. The appellate court also concluded that the trial court had eliminated any uncertainty by limiting the scope to three miles from The Shave's current location. The appellate court also ruled, despite Kennedy's assertion to the contrary, that her social media posts of pictures of The Shave's customers constituted solicitation in funher violation of the noncompete provision. Critical Thinking Legal What \"legitimate business interests" justify the enforcement of a noncompete provision? Economic What sort of harm, particularly in Kennedy's situation, would support a court's refusal to enforce an employment contract's noncompete provision? Business Scenarios and Case Problems 10-1. Conditions of Performance. The Caplans contract with Faithful Construction, Inc., to build a house for them for $360,000. The specifications state "all plumbing bowls and fixtures . . . to be Crane brand." The Caplans leave on vacation, and during their absence, Faithful is unable to buy and install Crane plumbing fixtures. Instead, Faithful installs Kohler brand fixtures, an equivalent in the industry. On completion of the building contract, the Caplans inspect the work, discover the substitution, and refuse to accept the house, claiming Faithful has breached the conditions set forth in the specifications. Discuss fully the Caplans' claim. (See Performance and Discharge.)