Heinrich was offered a job as a sales representative with Acme Aviation. When he asked if Acme could remove a noncomplete clause in the employment contract $($which would prevent him from working for competitors for two years after termination from Acme$),$ Acme management refused to negotiate and change the provision. Heinrich grudgingly signed the contract. Later, he quit and went to work for a competitor of Acme, Superior Aerospace. He started working for Superior just days after quitting from Acme; his position was as a computer programmer. Acme sued Heinrich for violation of the noncompete. At issue was whether taking a different type of job with a competitor $($programmer versus sales rep$)$ would count as a violation of the noncompete. The court has ruled that the term was in fact ambiguous. Under these circumstances, how should this ambiguous term in the contract be interpreted?