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 non-compete 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 non-compete 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 on-compete agreement.The essential question is whether the 2008 non-compete agreement was supported by adequate considerations."[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 non-compete agreement.Do you agree?Why or Why Not? [84 Lumber Co. L.P. v. Houser, 2011 Ohio 6852 (2011).]