\f8. Everlast Tire Co, which manufactures automobile tires, sold a shipment of tires to Automotive Wholesaler Inc. Under the terms ofthat contract, Automotive Wholesaler was allowed to resell the tires below the price suggested by Everlast if(ij the sub-buyer was a business in the car indus try, and (ii) the subbuyer promised not to resell below the price suggested by Everlast. Automotive Wholesaler then sold the tires to Aj's Used Cars Ltd. Under the terms of that contract. Aj's, which was engaged in the car industry as a used car dealer, promised Automotive Wholesaler that it would not resell the tires below the price suggested by Everlast. Aj's also promised Automotive Wholesaler that if it broke that promise, it would pay 5100 to Everlast for each tire that was sold below the manufacturer's suggested price. In fact, AJ's did sell 10 tires to individual custom ers at prices that were well below the price suggested by Everlast. Everlast now argues that it is entitled to recover $1000 from Aj's. Is that true? If not, does the result seem fair? And if not. what are the simplest means by which Everlast could have arranged the resale of its tires so that it would be able to enforce the promise that Aj's made to Automotive Wholesaler? . Consideration . sufficient and adequate consideration . past consideration . pre-existing obligations . promises enforceable without consideration . Privity of contract . assignment . trusts . statute . employment