Anderson is a vendor on 6th Street on the Howard University campus. He owns a number of vending trucks and has two major competitors, Bob and Carol. Anderson was interested in getting control of as much of the Howard business as possible because he thought that no more vending licenses would be issued permitting the sale of food from trucks on campus. Accordingly, he entered into a written agreement with Bob to purchase Bob's franchise, which included the license that Bob had obtained from the university to sell food on the campus as well as Bob's truck, for $ 30,000. Before the contract was signed, Anderson and Bob, as part of their lengthy discussions regarding the deal, had also orally agreed that Bob would not obtain a license in the future to compete in any way with Anderson on the Howard University campus. Anderson and Carol also entered into a written contract for the sale of her franchise rights and truck for $30,000. Approximately two years after the agreements, the University decided to continue the issuing of vending licenses permitting food sales from trucks. Bob, in spite of the arrangement that he had with Anderson, decided to reenter the business, obtained a license, and began selling food from a truck on the south side of campus. Anderson immediately brought suit against Bob.

What is the most likely result? Discuss fully.

Anderson became concerned that Carol might resume business on campus as well. Hence, he contacted Carol and they made the following written addendum to their previous written agreement.

June 15, 2020

I, Carol Crittenden, agree not to engage in any vending business on the campus of Howard University for five years.

Carol Crittenden Bob Butler In September 2020

Carol reneged on her promise and started her own vending business again. Does Anderson have any rights against Carol? Explain.

Anderson is also having problems with Dwayne. In 2016 he and Dwayne entered into an oral agreement for Dwayne to rent Anderson a vending truck for "as long as Anderson stays in the vending business at Howard University" in return for twenty percent of the profit from the sales from the truck. They had shaken hands on the deal but Dwayne now can rent the truck to someone else for more money and is demanding the truck back from Anderson. Dwayne claims he and Anderson never really had an enforceable contract since the agreement made in 2016 falls within the Statute of Frauds and has to be in writing.

Is Dwayne correct? Discuss fully.