Textbook - Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of Business Law

• Chapter 4: Contracts: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration
• Chapter 5: Contracts: Capacity, Genuine Assent, the Statute of Frauds, and Illegality
• Chapter 6: Third Parties, Performance and Discharge of Contracts, and Remedies
• Chapter 7: The UCC: Formation and Modification of the Sales Contract

 

 Read the Case Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz which is attached & then answer the following questions:

• What were the terms of the contract between Campbell and the Wentzes?
• Did the Wentzes perform under the contract?
• Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
• Why did the court refuse to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract?
• How could Campbell change its contract in the future so as to avoid the unconsionability problem?

 

Minimum of at least 2 0 0 words

 

Need 2 in textbook references cited in APA format.

Case Study: CampbellSoupCo. v. Wentz

172 F.2d 80 (3rd Cir. 1949)

Facts: Per a written contract betweenCampbellSoup Company (a New Jersey company) and the Wentzes (carrot farmers inPennsylvania), the Wentzes would deliver toCampbell all the Chantenay red cored carrots to be grown on the Wentz farm during the1947 season. The contract price for the carrots was $30 per ton. The contract betweenCampbellSoup and all sellers of carrots wasdrafted byCampbell and it had a provision that prohibited farmers/sellers from selling their carrots to anyone else, except thosecarrots that were rejected byCampbell. The contract also had a liquidated damages provision of $50 per ton if the seller breached,but it had no similar provision in the eventCampbell breached. The contract not only allowedCampbell to reject nonconformingcarrots, but gaveCampbell the right to determine who could buy the carrots it had rejected. The Wentzes harvested 100 tons ofcarrots, but because the market price at the time of harvesting was $90 per ton for these rare carrots, the Wentzes refused to deliverthem toCampbell and sold 62 tons of their carrots to a farmer who sold some of those carrots toCampbell.Campbell sued theWentzes, asking for the court's order to stop further sale of the contracted carrots to others and to compel specific performance ofthe contract. The trial court ruled for the Wentzes andCampbell appealed.

Issues: Is specific performance an appropriate legal remedy in this case or is the contract unconscionable?

Discussion: In January 1948, it was virtually impossible to obtain Chantenay carrots in the open market.Campbell used Chantenaycarrots (which are easier to process forsoup making than other carrots) in large quantities and furnishes the seeds to farmers withwhom it contracts.Campbell contracted for carrots long ahead, and farmers entered into the contract willingly. If the facts of this casewere this simple, specific performance should have been granted.

However, the problem is with the contract itself, which was one-sided. According to the appellate court, the most direct example ofunconscionability was the provision that, under certain circumstances,Campbell may reject carrots, but farmers cannot sell themanywhere withoutCampbell's permission. Though the contract was legal, it was wrong forCampbell to ask for the court's help inenforcing this unconscionable bargain (one that "shocks the conscience of the court"). The court said that the sum of the contract'sprovisions "drives too hard a bargain for a court of conscience to assist."

Holding: The judgment of the trial court in favor of the farmers is affirmed.