Introduction: In this simulation, students analyze the Stipulated Facts and Longville case law and spot as many contract law issues as possible. The analysis is articulated in a 3-4 page neutral (i.e., not advocating a particular side) memorandum. In May 2015, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell (Blackwell) had earned her medical doctor degree and completed all necessary requirement NA was managed by two partners, Dr. Richard Cohn (Cohn) and Dr. Jean Valjean (Valjean). While negotiating Blackwells employm Immediately after hiring Blackwell, NA paid for Blackwell to accompany the partners to a medical conference at which they wer Blackwell felt that she should have a lawyer review the document, but Cohn insisted the addendum was normal procedure and she In August 2015, Blackwell began to have conflicts with Cohn and, to a lesser extent, Valjean. While Cohn and Valjean took fre In September 2015, Blackwell continued to handle a very heavy caseload, seeing almost twice as many patients as Cohn or Valje Blackwell began to receive phone calls from recruiters trying to lure her away from the practice to work at a new neurology c On March 1, 2016, Blackwell, fed up with NA, announced that she was giving NA 60 days notice that she was leaving the practi 2. Modification: Is the second contract (the non-compete restrictive covenant) considered a separate agreement or a modification to the first agreement? Discuss any potential problems related to the restrictive covenant in terms of the modification of existing contract by the subsequent contract. 3. Duress: Could Blackwell reasonably claim that she was under duress when signing the restrictive covenant? What factors would suggest that she could/couldnt? Is the fact that she subjectively feared for her job relevant? Why? 4. Undue influence: What is the primary factor in deciding whether a party may avoid a contract for undue influence? Could it apply to the Blackwell case? 5. Good faith: Apply the good faith standard that underlies all contract law in terms of how the parties acted in this case. Could either party have breached the covenant of good faith? What actions specifically support you conclusion? 6. Breach: Did any of the parties actions on either side amount to a breach of contract? Does the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation apply? Why? When, if ever, did one party anticipatorily repudiate the Employment Agreement? 7. Remedies: Assuming Blackwell prevails, what remedies are available to her? Assuming NA prevails, what remedies are available to them? 8. Enforceability: Assuming that the non-compete covenant was properly formed, is it enforceable against Blackwell? What specific legitimate business interests is NA alleging? How can medical practices have trade secrets? Can a small practice actually generate enough goodwill to qualify as a legitimate business interest? What kind of investment did NA make in Blackwell that is similar to the one in the Wellspan case? 9. Balancing tests: How should the balancing test be applied? Does it weigh in favor of NA since they are merely attempting to protect their patient base and referral base? Since the practice is specialized, isnt it even more important to enforce the covenant given the devastating impact that your relocation could have on their revenue from patients? Given the lack of neurologists in the region, what public policy issues apply? Shouldnt patients choose their own physician? 10. Scope and Duration of Restriction: Can NA legitimately protect their interests in their patient base and referral base in entire the 50-mile radius? Couldnt Blackwell simply locate her practice outside the restricted area? The case law does not give an exact number of years, but there are no cases that provide for a three-year covenant such as the one Blackwell signed. Is three years necessary to protect NAs interest?