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?

Multiple Choice

It should be interpreted in Helnrich's favor, as the law governing the type of contract he signed holds that ambiguities are construed in favor of the party who didn't draft the contract:

It should be interpreted in Acme's favor, as any employment contract, whether freely negotiated between the parties or not, always is resolved in the employer's favor.

It should be interpreted in Acme's favor, as the law governing the type of contract he signed holds that ambiguities are construed in favor of the party who drafted the contract.

It should be interpreted in Heinrich's favor, as any employment contract, whether freely negotiated between the parties or not, always is resolved