Elements of a contact due 16 Oct Read the Case Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz in the text. Answer the following questions: 1.    What were the terms of the contract between Campbell and the Wentzes? 2.    Did the Wentzes perform under the contract? 3.    Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case? 4.    Why did the court refuse to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract? 5.    How could Campbell change its contract in the future so as to avoid the unconsionability problem? Facts: Per a written contract between Campbell Soup Company (a New Jersey company) and the Wentzes (carrot farmers in Pennsylvania), the Wentzes would deliver to Campbell all the Chantenay red cored carrots to be grown on the Wentz farm during the 1947 season. The contract price for the carrots was $30 per ton. The contract between Campbell Soup and all sellers of carrots was drafted by Campbell and it had a provision that prohibited farmers/sellers from selling their carrots to anyone else, except those carrots that were rejected by Campbell. The contract also had a liquidated damages provision of $50 per ton if the seller breached, but it had no similar provision in the event Campbell breached. The contract not only allowed Campbell to reject nonconforming carrots, but gave Campbell the right to determine who could buy the carrots it had rejected. The Wentzes harvested 100 tons of carrots, but because the market price at the time of harvesting was $90 per ton for these rare carrots, the Wentzes refused to deliver them to Campbell and sold 62 tons of their carrots to a farmer who sold some of those carrots to Campbell. Campbell sued the Wentzes, asking for the court's order to stop further sale of the contracted carrots to others and to compel specific performance of the contract. The trial court ruled for the Wentzes and Campbell 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 Chantenay carrots (which are easier to process for soup making than other carrots) in large quantities and furnishes the seeds to farmers with whom it contracts. Campbell contracted for carrots long ahead, and farmers entered into the contract willingly. If the facts of this case were 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 of unconscionability was the provision that, under certain .

1. Elements of a contact due 16 Oct
Read the Case Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz in the text. Answer
the following questions:
1. What were the terms of the contract between Campbell and
the Wentzes?
2. Did the Wentzes perform under the contract?
3. Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate
legal remedy in this case?
4. Why did the court refuse to help Campbell in enforcing its
legal contract?
5. How could Campbell change its contract in the future so as
to avoid the unconsionability problem?
Facts:
Per
a
written
contract
between
Campbell
Soup
Company
(a
New
Jersey
company)
and
the
Wentzes
(carrot
farmers
in
Pennsylvania),
the
Wentzes

2. would
deliver
to
Campbell
all
the
Chantenay
red
cored
carrots
to
be
grown
on
the
Wentz
farm
during
the
1947
season.
The
contract
price
for
the
carrots
was
$30
per
ton.
The
contract
between
Campbell
Soup

3. and
all
sellers
of
carrots
was
drafted
by
Campbell
and
it
had
a
provision
that
prohibited
farmers/sellers
from
selling
their
carrots
to
anyone
else,
except
those
carrots
that
were
rejected
by
Campbell.
The
contract
also
had

4. a
liquidated
damages
provision
of
$50
per
ton
if
the
seller
breached,
but
it
had
no
similar
provision
in
the
event
Campbell
breached.
The
contract
not
only
allowed
Campbell
to
reject
nonconforming
carrots,
but
gave
Campbell

5. the
right
to
determine
who
could
buy
the
carrots
it
had
rejected.
The
Wentzes
harvested
100
tons
of
carrots,
but
because
the
market
price
at
the
time
of
harvesting
was
$90
per
ton
for
these
rare

6. carrots,
the
Wentzes
refused
to
deliver
them
to
Campbell
and
sold
62
tons
of
their
carrots
to
a
farmer
who
sold
some
of
those
carrots
to
Campbell.
Campbell
sued
the
Wentzes,
asking
for
the
court's
order

7. to
stop
further
sale
of
the
contracted
carrots
to
others
and
to
compel
specific
performance
of
the
contract.
The
trial
court
ruled
for
the
Wentzes
and
Campbell
appealed.
Issues:
Is
specific
performance
an
appropriate
legal
remedy

8. 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
Chantenay
carrots
(which
are
easier
to
process
for
soup
making

9. than
other
carrots)
in
large
quantities
and
furnishes
the
seeds
to
farmers
with
whom
it
contracts.
Campbell
contracted
for
carrots
long
ahead,
and
farmers
entered
into
the
contract
willingly.
If
the
facts
of
this
case
were

10. 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
of
unconscionability
was
the
provision
that,
under
certain

11. circumstances,
Campbell
may
reject
carrots,
but
farmers
cannot
sell
them
anywhere
without
Campbell's
permission.
Though
the
contract
was
legal,
it
was
wrong
for
Campbell
to
ask
for
the
court's
help
in
enforcing
this
unconscionable
bargain
(one

12. that
"shocks
the
conscience
of
the
court").
The
court
said
that
the
sum
of
the
contract's
provisions
"drives
too
hard
a
bargain
for
a
court
of
conscience
to
assist."
Holding:
The
judgment
of
the
trial
court

13. in
favor
of
the
farmers
is
affirmed.