[Poker dealer] Roland and Parna sign a contract for Parna to work as a poker dealer for a minimum of one year in Rolands casino. The contract includes a requirement for Roland to pay for a training program for Parna for the software system used throughout the casino. Parna completes the program and obtains a certificate. The week before Parna begins work at Rolands casino, their state passes a law that all poker dealers must be 21 years old. Parna, however, is only nineteen. Roland wants to avoid paying for the training program and claims the contract is indivisible and thus unenforceable. Is he correct?

1) Yes, if Roland could show that the main purpose of the contract was for Parna to work as a poker dealer, then declaring parts of the contract as void would substantially alter the contract. 2) No, because courts are likely to enforce a contract regardless of whether severing the contract would substantially alter it. 3) No, because even if the legal parts were separated from the contract, the main purpose of the contract (employing Parna as a poker dealer) can be met after she turns 21. 4) Yes, because Parna would be unjustifiably enriched if Roland paid for the program. 5) No, because almost every contract is divisible