UnidentifiedQUESTION $29$Techinnovate, a UK$-$based technology company, signs a contract with CyberSolutions, a South Korean cybersecurity firm, to jointly develop an advanced cybersecurity platform. The contract, valued at $$750$ million, includes a dispute resolution clause specifying mediation followed by arbitration under the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre $($SIAC$),$ with litigation in the UK courts as the final step. The contract also includes a non$-$compete clause, preventing either party from engaging in similar projects with competitors for a period of five years. Three years into the project, Techinnovate discovers that CyberSolutions has entered into a similar contract with a major competitor in the United States, potentially violating the non$-$compete clause. Techinnovate demands immediate cessation of the project, full compensation for the breach, and invokes the dispute resolution process. CyberSolutions argues that the new contract does not violate the non$-$compete clause as it involves a different market and different technology specifications. Mediation fails, and the case proceeds to arbitration. During the arbitration, Techinnovate presents evidence that the competitor's project is similar enough to be considered a direct violation of the non$-$compete clause. CyberSolutions counters that the non$-$compete clause is overly broad and unenforceable under South Korean law, arguing that the project in the United States is sufficiently distinct from the joint venture. What is the most likely outcome of the arbitration, considering the enforceability of the non$-$compete clause and the arguments presented by both parties? The arbitrator rules in favor of Techinnovate, finding that CyberSolutions violated the non$-$compete clause and awards full compensation. O The arbitrator rules in favor of CyberSolutions, finding that the non$-$compete clause is overly broad and unenforceable, thus dismissing the claims.The arbitrator suggests a compromise, where CyberSolutions pays partial compensation to Techinnovate, acknowledging the competitive overlap but also considering the distinct market focus.The arbitrator refers the case to litigation in the UK courts to determine the enforceability of the non$-$compete clause under international law.