Help me answer these questions,

You stated the following in your post: The appellate court of unconscionability was the provision that, under certain circumstances, Campbell might reject carrots. Still, farmers cannot sell them anywhere without Campbell's permission. "drives too hard a bargain for a court of conscience to assist. You stated that the court found that the contract was unconscionable because Campbell could reject the carrots and then the farmer could sell the rejected carrots but had to obtain authorization from Campbell as to who the rejected carrots could be soul to. In other words, if Campbell did not want a particular buyer that the farmer was going to sell some rejected carrots to, Campbell could say they would not allow the farmer to sell the carrots to that particular buyer of the rejected carrots. The contract was found to be a legal contract. You then went on to say that "the court can refuse to enforce the contract, strike out the unconscionable clause, or reform the contract by modifying the unconscionable clause to prevent an excessive result." You stated that the contract when it was made was a legal contract. The only issue with the contract was the clause the farmer could not sell the rejected carrots to whomever he chose to sell them to. When discussing how the contract could be changed so that it was not unconscionable, you started talking about market price. Did the court discuss market price at all when determining whether this was a valid and legal contract? What is the only provision that should be changed so that this contract would not be considered an unconscionable contract?