Norm Hefty was a door-to-door salesman for Toothrot Candy Company. His duties were to call on customers and make sales in Bedford, Indiana, which is located in the southern part of the state. Toothrot's business territory covers the entire state of Indiana. Hefty and Toothrot had entered into a written employment contract at the time he joined the firm. One of the clauses in the contract stated that if Hefty ceased working for Toothrot, he could not work as a salesman for a competing company anywhere in Indiana for a period of five years. Hefty left his employment with Toothrot and promptly went to work as a salesman for a candy company that competed with Toothrot. His duties with the new employer were confined to the town of Elkhart, which is located in northern Indiana. Toothrot has sued Hefty in an effort to obtain an injunction against further violation of the non-competition clause in the parties' employment contract. Which of the following is most true? A) Toothrot will win, because the clause's geographic scope was restricted to the state in which Toothrot does business. B) Toothrot will win, because the time period of the clause was reasonable. C) Both A and B are true. D) Hefty will win, because the clause restricts him from engaging in a common calling.