(1977); S.Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 82-83 (1978). 10 .Andrews, seeking to avoid this conclusion, makes much of the fact that the two experts on whom Tarmac and the AMAX principals relied to value the sale reached a figure of nine million dollars, the ultimate sale price. Because this figure included one million dollars for good will (in the form of customer lists), Andrews argues that the NCA payments were not in fact payments for good will that should be considered part of the sale and thus part of his estate. This argument misses the point. Tarmac made the NCA a condition of the sale, and made the payments thereunder, to protect and maintain the good will it purchased from AMAX. See Unsecured. Creditor's Committee v. Prince (In re Prince), 127 B.R. 187, 192 (N.D.Ill.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Mid-West Motors, Inc., 82 B.R. 439, 441
holding that agreement not to compete provided in conjunction with sale of business is agreement not to undermine value of good will that has been sold holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement holding that where one party had received a written agreement and conformed his conduct to that agreement for an extended period of time but failed to sign the agreement he was equitably estopped from denying the validity of the agreement holding that agreement did not constitute a binding preliminary agreement to negotiate in good faith a mortgage contract holding consideration for covenant not to compete contained in purchase agreement for sale of business not tantamount to earnings from services performed postpetition