Hypothetical: A prominent athlete has a multimillion-dollar endorsement contract with an athleisure clothing company for advertising and marketing. The contract includes a morality clause allowing the company to terminate the contract without penalty if the athlete is charged with a crime more than a misdemeanor, found guilty of any crime, or engages in any outrageous act which brings negative publicity to the company. It is reported that the athlete is an admitted sex addict, is engaged in multiple affairs while married to his wife, and is seeking treatment for prescription drug addiction. No criminal charges are brought and he is not convicted of a crime. The company, ACME, wants to terminate the contract. What would each side argue their case? Which argument do you think is more persuasive? How could future endorsement contracts be drafted to avoid this potential problem? Please make sure to use LEGAL PERSPECTIVE and argue both sides and provide evidence.