In the case of Payroll Advance, Inc. v. Yates, the state appellate court ruling held Select one: a. the plaintiff was not allowed to enforce the employment agreement and the non-compete provision due to its terms and conditions amounting to an unreasonable and unduly burdensome restriction on the defendant's ability to to seek employment with a competitor after her termination. ob, the plaintiff was allowed to enforce the employment agreement and the non-compete provision due to its terms and conditions amounting to a reasonable restriction on the defendant's ability to seek employment with a competitor after her termination oc. the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction order against the defendant, since she signed a non-compete contract. Od the plaintiff was allowed to enforce its employment agreement with the defendant since it contained an exculpatory clause to which she expressly consented. Oenone of the above An offer can be communicated by words or by conduct. Select one: O True O False