Hello, I am currently taking 311: Business Law I BBL2118B and like your assistance with the following:

Week two discussion 1:

Facts:PerawrittencontractbetweenCampbellSoupCompany(aNewJerseycompany)andtheWentzes(carrotfarmersinPennsylvania),theWentzeswoulddelivertoCampbellalltheChantenayredcoredcarrotstobegrownontheWentzfarmduringthe1947season.Thecontractpriceforthecarrotswas$30perton.ThecontractbetweenCampbellSoupandallsellersofcarrotswasdraftedbyCampbellandithadaprovisionthatprohibitedfarmers/sellersfromsellingtheircarrotstoanyoneelse,exceptthosecarrotsthatwererejectedbyCampbell.Thecontractalsohadaliquidateddamagesprovisionof$50pertonifthesellerbreached,butithadnosimilarprovisionintheeventCampbellbreached.ThecontractnotonlyallowedCampbelltorejectnonconformingcarrots,butgaveCampbelltherighttodeterminewhocouldbuythecarrotsithadrejected.TheWentzesharvested100tonsofcarrots,butbecausethemarketpriceatthetimeofharvestingwas$90pertonfortheserarecarrots,theWentzesrefusedtodeliverthemtoCampbellandsold62tonsoftheircarrotstoafarmerwhosoldsomeofthosecarrotstoCampbell.CampbellsuedtheWentzes,askingforthecourt'sordertostopfurthersaleofthecontractedcarrotstoothersandtocompelspecificperformanceofthecontract.ThetrialcourtruledfortheWentzesandCampbellappealed.

Issues:Isspecificperformanceanappropriatelegalremedyinthiscaseoristhecontractunconscionable?

Discussion:InJanuary1948,itwasvirtuallyimpossibletoobtainChantenaycarrotsintheopenmarket.CampbellusedChantenaycarrots(whichareeasiertoprocessforsoupmakingthanothercarrots)inlargequantitiesandfurnishestheseedstofarmerswithwhomitcontracts.Campbellcontractedforcarrotslongahead,andfarmersenteredintothecontractwillingly.Ifthefactsofthiscasewerethissimple,specificperformanceshouldhavebeengranted.

However,theproblemiswiththecontractitself,whichwasone-sided.Accordingtotheappellatecourt,themostdirectexampleofunconscionabilitywastheprovisionthat,undercertaincircumstances,Campbellmayrejectcarrots,butfarmerscannotsellthemanywherewithoutCampbell'spermission.Thoughthecontractwaslegal,itwaswrongforCampbelltoaskforthecourt'shelpinenforcingthisunconscionablebargain(onethat"shockstheconscienceofthecourt").Thecourtsaidthatthesumofthecontract'sprovisions"drivestoohardabargainforacourtofconsciencetoassist."

Holding:Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtinfavorofthefarmersisaffirmed.

QuestionsforDiscussion

1. WhatwerethetermsofthecontractbetweenCampbellandtheWentzes?
2. DidtheWentzesperformunderthecontract?
3. Didthecourtfindspecificperformancetobeanadequatelegalremedyinthiscase?
4. WhydidthecourtrefusetohelpCampbellinenforcingitslegalcontract?
5. HowcouldCampbellchangeitscontractinthefuturesoastoavoidtheunconscionabilityproblem?

The professors questions are the following:

Read theCaseCampbell Soup Co. v. Wentz in the text. 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?

Can you please help me create a good summary answering the professors questions regarding the case study.

I am sorry, I forgot the show you my answers to the questions. will resubmit, I don't understand the last question "How could Campbell Change its contract in the future so as to avoid unconsionability problem? I suspect that there several ways to modify and respond to the question but I don't know which would be best answer. Thank you