William recently sold his successful business to janice. the contract for the sale contained an unreasonable restriction that did not allow william to open a similar business for fifteen years. in this instance, the courts would likely:

Explanation:

In the given context, William sold his business to Janice. But in the contract that was made there was an unreasonable restriction to William that he cannot open a business of similar nature for the next fifteen years.  But the court in this instant can either refuse the restriction to be enforced and allow William to open a business or the court can also reform the contract asking them to make it reasonable.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.