Charles Houser began working for appellee, 84 Lumber Company L.P. (84 Lumber), in 1985. In 1998, Houser became an outside salesman with 84 Lumber, and his compensation changed from a set salary to commission based on his sales. At that time, Houser signed a noncompete agreement, which prohibited him from engaging in sales activities with a competitor of 84 Lumber within a 25-mile radius of 84 Lumber's Macedonia store for a two-year period following the conclusion of his employment with 84 Lumber. In June 2008, Houser signed a contract providing a set weekly draw and yet another noncompete agreement. In March 2009, Houser left 84 Lumber and, almost immediately thereafter, began working for Carter Lumber, a competitor of 84 Lumber.
84 Lumber filed a lawsuit alleging that Houser had violated the noncompete agreement. The essential question is whether the 2008 noncompete agreement was supported by adequate consideration. "[A] restrictive covenant is enforceable if supported by new consideration, either in the form of an initial employment contract or a change in the conditions of employment." 84 Lumber Company argued that Houser's continued employment was adequate consideration for the new noncompete agreement. Do you agree? Why or why not? [84 Lumber Co., L.P. v. Houser, 2011 Ohio 6852 (2011).]