With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (2008); Novacare Orthotics & Prosthetics E., Inc. v. Speelman, 137 N.C.App. 471, 476, 528 S.E.2d 918, 921 (2000); Lewis, 96 N.C.App. at 166-68, 385 S.E.2d at 356-57. Furthermore, under North Carolina law, this court cannot “blue pencil” the word “service” and add the word “nursing” to the non-competition provision to attempt to make the non-competition provision enforceable. ' See, e.g., Whittaker Gen. Med. Corp. v. Daniel, 324 N.C. 523, 528, 379 S.E.2d 824, 828 (1989); Henley Paper Co., 253 N.C. at 535, 117 S.E.2d at 435; Noe v. McDevitt, 228 N.C. 242, 245, 46. S.E.2d 121, 123 (1947); VisionAIR, Inc., 167 N.C.App. at 508, 606 S.E.2d at 362; Hartman, 117 N.C.App. at 309-11, 450 S.E.2d at 915-16; cf. Welcome Wagon Int’l, Inc. v. Pender, 255 N.C. 244, 248, 120 S.E.2d 739, 742 (1961) (<HOLDING>). As written, the covenant not to compete

A: holding that court may not refuse to enforce noncompete agreement solely because geographical area is unreasonable but rather must modify unreasonable restriction and enforce agreement as modified
B: holding that the territorial jurisdictional issue is a factual determination which is within the province of the jury to resolve under appropriate instructions and that we agree with the weight of authority that the territorial jurisdictional issue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
C: recognizing six bases territorial national protective universal passive personality and objective territorial
D: recognizing court of equitys power to take notice of territorial divisions that the parties included in a covenant not to compete and to enforce the restrictions in the territorial divisions deemed reasonable and to refuse to enforce divisions deemed unreasonable
D.