Question 6 (1 point) Kordic returned from a business lunch in an intoxicated state and, while still under the influence, agreed to sell his motorcycle to his cubicle mate for a price substantially lower than its market value. Which statement best describes Kordic's legal position should he later regret, and want to challenge, the transaction? The contract will be binding on Kordic because his reduced mental capacity was voluntarily self-induced. He must claim relief on the basis of undue influence. The contract may be voidable if his co-worker was aware Kordic lacked mental capacity. He must claim relief due to the effects of duress. Question 7 (1 point) Why would the law take a harsher view restrictive covenants in a purely employment context compared to those arising in the context of a sale of a business? Because the clauses are typically ambiguous. Because such clauses violate the Competition Act. Because there is typically a power balance in employment situations. Because such agreements offend human rights legislation Question 10 (1 point) Why are contracts that unduly interfere with the ability to earn a livelihood or reduce competition generally unenforceable in common law? They contravene the rules of goodwill contained in the Competition Act. They contravene the rules of fairness contained in the Consumer Protection Act. They are contrary to public policy. They cannot be enforced because they are contrary to equitable principles.