Johan was a full time engineer who loved to make ice cream in his spare time. He developed a gluten free version that was popular among his friends, and he had quite a following of supporters.One of his friends Betty was so enthusiastic about Johan's ice cream that she invited Johan to start a company with her to produce and sell the ice cream.Betty was a marketing consultant and had expertise in marketing frozen foods.She knew there was a large unserved market in gluten free desserts.Betty and Johan agreed to form a partnership in which they would be 50/50 partners.In the partnership agreement, they included a term that required the partners to not engage in other activities that would compete with their ice cream business.

After a few months, Johan told Betty that he eventually wanted to expand the product line into ice creams that were not gluten free.Betty strongly opposed this type of expansion.Johan decided to partner with another dessert company to manufacture and sell his non-gluten free ice cream.

When Betty discovered this, she sued Johan claiming that he breached the partnership agreement's non-compete clause.At trial, Betty's lawyers want to introduce testimony from Johan's ex-wife that Johan had a gambling addiction and is a terrible father.Johan's lawyers' best argument to exclude this testimony is:

1/ John's personal life is irrelevant to the claim that he breached the non-compete clause

2/ The confidential marital communications privilege bars such testimony

3/ The fact of addiction is best evidenced through expert testimony

4/ The testimony is inadmissible hearsay.