1. Power One Machinery, a Colorado manufacturing corporation, hired Brooks Albertson as a salesman and required him to sign a contract stating that if he left Power-One, he would not work for a competing corporation anywhere within 250 miles of Colorado for a two-year period. Later, Albertson left Power-One and began working at Centennial Corp., another Colorado manufacturer. The only product Centennial made was urethane screens, which comprised half of 1% of Power One's business. Is Power-One entitled to enforce its noncompete clause? Why or why not?

2. Larry Harlowe moved to Oklahoma, to work at an insurance company owned by Paulson. After he moved there, Paulson offered to sell Harlowe a house he owned and Harlowe agreed in writing to buy it. He did buy the house and moved in, but two years later, Harlowe left the insurance company. He then claimed that at the time of the sale, Paulson had orally promised to buy back his house at the selling price if Harlowe should happen to leave the company. Paulson defended based on the statute of frauds. Harlowe argued that the statute of fraud did not apply because the repurchase of the house was essentially part of his employment with Paulson. Who wins and why?

3. Leon James is the developer of a subdivision near Henderson. On February 15, 2001, he entered into a written contract to sell a lot in the subdivision to Pablo Thomas for $50,000. During negotiations, James assured Thomas that the property was zoned outside of the 50-year flood plain, but the written contract, which contained a conspicuous merger clause, made no mention of this. When, after signing the contract and paying James for the lot, Thomas applied for a building permit, he was notified that the lot was within the 50-year flood plain (meaning both that it is substantially more prone to flooding and that it will be much more expensive to insure the house that Thomas intends to build on the lot). If Thomas sues James for breach of contract, would evidence of James's oral representation be admissible at trial, notwithstanding the parol evidence rule? Please explain all issues pertaining to the parol evidence rule and its exceptions.