Steamatic of kansas city inc. specialized in cleaning and restoring property damaged by fire, smoke, water, or other elements. it employed rhea as a marketing representative. his duties included soliciting customers, preparing cost estimates, supervising restoration work, and conducting seminars. at the time of his employment, rhea signed a non competition agreement prohibiting him from entering into a business in competition with steamatic within six counties of the kansas city area for a period of two years after the termination of his employment with steamatic. late in 1987, rhea decided to leave steamatic. in contemplation of the move, he secretly extracted the agreement restricting his postemployment activity from the company’s files and destroyed it. steamatic learned of this and discharged rhea. steamatic filed suit against rhea to enforce the non competition agreement when it learned that he was entering a competing business. will the noncompetition agreement be enforced