Osborne, a former chairman of the board of Locke Steel Company, entered into an agreement with Locke that, on retirement, he would hold himself available for consultation and would not work for any direct or indirect competitors of the company. In exchange for these promises, the company agreed to pay Osborne $15,000 a year for the rest of his life. After paying for two years, the company stopped payments when Osborne refused to consent to a modification of the agreement. Osborne sued. The defendant, Locke, argued that there was no consideration because the contract was based on past services, and thus there was no detriment to the promise (Osborne). Who won? Explain.