a) Davis made three primary arguments. What were they?
b) Is there any substance to Davis's argument that the restrictions were too broad?
c) Does the court suggest that an employer is free to make any restriction it wishes?
d) Does the court create a test to determine when such agreements might be unreasonable?
e) Would it be more useful as precedent if the court instructed where that line should be?
f) This case is over 300 years old. Why are we reading it today? What relevance does it have to the current law of contracts?