Help with analyzing case study?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-n-Stuff Sandwiches, a national sandwich shop chain, requires all of its employees from the delivery persons, sandwich makers on up to upper management to sign contracts that include the following clause:

Employee covenants and agrees that, during his or her employment with the Employer and for a period of 2 years after... he or she will not have any indirect or direct interest in or perform services for... any business which derives more than 10% of its revenue from selling deli-style, pita, hero-type, submarine and/or rolled/wrapped sandwiches and which is located within three 3 miles of either the store location in question or any such other Sub-n-Stuff Sandwich Shop.

Sammy, who lives in Texas, was hired by a Subs-n-Stuff shop as a sandwich maker and if needed, filled in as a delivery driver. He signed an agreement with the above provision included in the agreement. It has been six months and Sammy would like to work as a server at Denny's restaurant located one mile down the road. He believes it is no problem because while Denny's has an extensive sandwich menu, it is not a sandwich shop. Can Sammy go work for Denny's without any legal consequences?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These types of agreements are: (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY.)

a. contracts in restraint of trade.

b. generally illegal in most states.

c. generally legal in most states when reasonable and ancillary.

What more information would help with determining whether there are any possible legal consequences? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY.)

a. How much revenue Denny derives from its sandwich sales.

b. Whether the restrictions in time and area are reasonable.

c. Whether the clause must be ancillary part of the employment contract.

If Texas law requires this agreement to be ancillary then: (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY.)

a. promising to give employee confidential information in exchange for the promise to not compete is enough consideration and meets this requirement.

b. promising to give the employee special training in exchange for not competing is enough consideration and meets this requirement.

Sammy's best legal arguments for NOT enforcing this agreement are: (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY.)

a. Denny's is not a sandwich shop.

b. The agreement was in writing.

c. The time and geographical area terms are unreasonable.