Some companies in fields where skilled employees are hard to find make signing an "agreement not to compete" a condition of employment. In such an agreement the employee promises not to go to work for a competing firm for a set period after leaving his or her current employer. Courts are increasingly ruling that these agreements are not binding. Yet paradoxically, for people who signed such agreements when working for competing firms, many firms are unwilling to consider hiring them during the period covered by the agreement. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the paradox? ['Many companies will not risk having to become involved in lawsuits, even suits that they expect to have a favorable outcome, because of the associated costs and publicity.', 'Most companies that require their employees to sign agreements not to compete are aware that these documents are not legally binding.', 'Many people who have signed agreements not to compete are unwilling to renege on a promise by going to work for a competing firm.', "Many companies consider their employees' established relationships with clients and other people outside the company to be valuable company assets."]