With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". document. The Court finds that the non-competition agreement fails for lack of consideration. See Alex Sheshunoff Management Services, L.P. v. Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644, 650-51 (Tex.2006) (not released for publication) (“We understand why the Legislature and the courts would not allow an employer to spring a non-compete covenant on an existing employee and enforce such a covenant absent new consideration from the employer. ‘[A]n agreement not to compete, like any other contract, must be supported by consideration.’ DeSantis, 793 S.W.2d at 681 n. 6. The Act, as we now read it, addresses this concern. The covenant cannot be a stand-alone promise from the employee lacking any new consideration from the employer. See, e.g., Martin v. Credit Prot. Ass’n, Inc., 793 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>).”) If an employer’s customers can be readily

A: holding employment agreement consisting entirely of a covenant not to compete unenforceable because the covenant must be supported by valuable consideration
B: holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable
C: holding that a covenant not to compete for two years was enforceable
D: holding that michigan courts would not enforce a covenant not to compete which violates mcla 445761 even though the covenant would have been enforceable in missouri where the contract was executed
A.