The Case Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz
A contract is an agreement, either written or spoken, that is enforceable by law. The primary purpose of a contract is to ensure each party is accountable, and in case of a breach of contract, legal alternatives are given. A breach of contract occurs when the promise of the contract is not kept. This is because one party has failed to fulfill its obligation, as stated in the contract. Types of contracts that can be breached include minor, material, anticipatory, and fundamental breach. Time frames or details that each party must meet are normally entitled to the legal recourse of breach of contract if not satisfied.
Questions and Answers
Terms of contract between Campbell and Wentz
The terms of the contract were: Campbell was to be given priority by Wentz on what carrots they wanted and if they would accept them or not. Incase Wentz chose not to accept the carrots after inspection, Campbell was entitled to the right to select alternative buyers based on between $23 to $30 per ton compared to the market value of $90 per ton.
Whether Wentz performed under contract
Wentz did not perform under the contract, and this resulted in the breach of a contract.
Whether the court found specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in the case
The court did not find particular performance to be a proper legal remedy, and hence it ruled in favor of the Wentz
Why court refused to help Campbell to enforce its legal contract
The reason why the court refused to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract is that it was unconscionable. In this case, the court found that the contract was biased and favored of Campbell and therefore, could not enforce it in good conscious. It could not be sided in favor of one party.
How Campbell could change its contract in the future so as to avoid the unconscionability problem
Through changing the language of the contract. For example, where it reads that Campbell is responsible for the purchase of all or part of Wentz carrots, the Wentz has the legal right to sell any remaining carrots to any buyer who is willing to purchase them.
References
Vito, B. (2010). A Carrot from Any Other Farmer Will Still Go in the Soup: Uniqueness and Casebook Contract Law. Fla. St. U. Bus. Rev., 9, 103.
Braucher, R. (1969). The Unconscionable Contract or Term. U. Pitt. L. Rev., 31, 337.
Hart, O. D., & Holmstrm, B. (1986). The theory of contracts.