Answer the 3 questions below and reply to each student.

Student Reply must be over 250 words.

Make sure all student replies you start it with Hello (Student Name),

Please upload each question in different word documents.

******Question 2 must be APA format and i have attached the GRADING RUBRIC and Guide. *************

Make sure for question 1 we use a scholarly source since it must be attached to the post.

Question 1:

Read the Case Campbell 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?

Guided Response: Review your peer’s responses. Respond to at least two of your classmates’ letting them know if you agree with their analysis. Legal analysis is fact driven. If your analysis of the facts is different from a peer’s response, list the facts that led you to your conclusion. Did your peer give more weight to facts that you found unimportant? Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts by Day 7.

Student Reply 1: Elsa Torres

What were the terms of the contract between Campbell and the Wentzes?

The contract between Campbell Soup and Wentzes stipulated that Campbell Soup Company would purchase Chanteny red carrots at $30.00 dollars during the 1947 season from Wentzes (Rogers, 2012). It went on to prohibit the Wentzes from selling aforementioned produce to anyone but Campbell unless approved by said company, and limited such sales to defective product. By breaking the contract would result in Campbell Soup receiving $50.00 dollars a ton in liquidated damages, with no reciprocal payment to the injured party in the event that Campbell did not hold up its end of the contract.

Did the Wentzes perform under the contract?

The fair market value for the rare carrots was significantly more than what Campbell Soup was willing to pay, causing the Wentzes to lose money. The Wentzes denied the contract and sold about 62 tons to another farmer, who then turned around and sold those carrots to Campbell.

Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?

The court did not find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case, due to the perception that the problem was the contract in itself and how one sided it was.

Why did the court refuse to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract?

The court refused to enforce the contract, and ruled in favor of the Wentzes’ due to the unconscionable unfair terms that favored Campbell Soup Company and disallowed the farmers to resell the rejected carrots at their own discretion, as well as the clause that disallows any penalties to be assigned to Campbell Soup Company in case it renaged on their contract.

How could Campbell change its contract in the future so as to avoid the unconsionability problem?

Campbell Soup Company could change its contract to account for the fair market price for the product, as well as allowing any rejected product to be sold elsewhere at the farmer’s discretion.

References:

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of Business Law [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ (Links to an external site.)

Student Reply 2: Michelle Lee

What were the terms of the contract between Campbell and the Wentzes?

The terms of the contract were that Wentzes was to deliver to Campbell Soup Co., red cored carrots grown on their farm in the season of 1974. They were contracted at $30 per ton. “The prices specified in the contract ranged from $23 to $30 per ton according to the time of delivery. The contract price for January, 1948 was $30 a ton.” The Campbell Soup Co., drafted a provision prohibiting farmers/sellers to not allow them to sell to anyone else unless they rejected the carrots. A liquidated damages provision of $50 per ton was applied if the seller (Wentz) breached the contract, but there was not a provision put into place if Campbell Soup were to breach the contract. Also, Campbell Soup Co., gave themselves the right to determine who could buy carrots that they did reject (Rogers, 2012).

Did the Wentzes perform under the contract?

Wentz harvested 100 tons of carrots, at a price of $90 per ton (market price), they did not want to accept the $30 per ton from Campbell Soup, so they sold 62 tons to another farmer who then turned around and sold some to Campbell Soup. Therefore, Wentz did not perform under the contract as stipulated.

Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?

Interesting enough, the court ruled for Wentz. “The trial court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the carrots, “judged by objective standards,” are unique goods. This we think is not a pure fact conclusion like a finding that Chantenay carrots are of uniform color. It is either a conclusion of law or of mixed fact and law and we are bound to exercise our independent judgment upon it. That the test for specific performance is not necessarily “objective” is shown by the many cases in which equity has given it to enforce contracts for articles family heirlooms and the like the value of which was personal to the plaintiff.”

Why did the court refuse to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract?

The court determined that the contract language was very one-sided and favored only Campbell Soup. “It was wrong for Campbell to ask for the court’s help in enforcing this unconscionable bargain (one that “shocks the conscience of the court”)” (Rogers, 2012).

How could Campbell change its contract in the future so as to avoid the unconscionability problem?

Rogers (2012) states that a contract is unconscionable if it is undeniably unfair to one of the parties. Rogers also mentions that unconscionable contracts typically arise when there is an imbalance of power where one party is not in a position to bargain for a more favorable term. The court ruled that the contract between Campbell Soup Co. and the Wentzes was unconscionable.

Campbell could change its contract in the future to avoid unconscionability. If Campbell is going to penalize a company for not delivering carrots, the farmers should be able to penalize Campbell for not receiving carrots. Also, if Campbell wants to reject certain carrots, they should not have the ability to dictate who gets to purchase these unwanted carrots. In other words, Campbell Soup Co., merely needs to be fairer with the terms of the contracts they make with farmers such as the Wentzes.

References:

Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz, 172 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1948). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-cou… (Links to an external site.)

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of Business Law [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

Question 2:

Read the Ace Heating and Cooling scenario in your text and answer the following questions:

• Under UCC 2-302, who has the best chance of getting out of the contract due to unconsionability?
• The symbol for justice features a woman wearing a blindfold illustrating that the law should be applied the same way regardless of who the parties are. Does the UCC rule seem to contradict this? Which approach do you think is more ethical?
• Note that both Glamour and Shady Rest are businesses, and courts rarely find that contracts between two businesses are unconscionable. The rationale is that a business is a sophisticated entity, familiar with transactions and able to protect itself. Do you think Glamour and Shady Rest are in a comparable position in regard to this contract? Why or why not?

Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your classmates by Day 7, explaining your position and why you agree or disagree with their comments. Do you think the contracts are fair or unfair considering the parties had a disproportionate ability to bargain? Under UCC Section 2-302 the court has the discretion to find the contract unconscionable. Do you think this is a good approach? What other methods to resolve this issue is appropriate?

Student Reply 3: Caleb Rardin

In the examples, Breanna is most likely to get out of the contract due to the abnormally high-interest rate and financing on the unit and also due to her current state. This seems on the outset to fly in the face of the blindfolded woman of justice but upon further examination, you see that the other examples of persons or businesses that have a higher level of means. The UCC 2-302 allows for the determination to be made on unconscionability which means the general fairness of a contract. In order to do this, both parties must also be judged. In the case of businesses, it should be assumed that the business should be able to protect itself from bad contracts as opposed to an individual. But it can be said that all contracts and all business entities are not equal. In the case of Shady Rest Home, the business is one that is barely able to get by and therefore more risky in the case of contract. Where this becomes interesting is whether the company offering the contract has a liability to offer the contract to individuals and entities that show an ability to repay the loan. This can be exampled in the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2008 and the liability should be held on the banks and government who backed the loans as they may have been deemed unconscionable

Student Reply 4 : Sanjay Dutt

Under UCC 2-302, who has the best chance of getting out of the contract due to unconscionability?

As per Rogers (2012), “An unconscionable bargain is one that is grossly unfair to one party and typically involves a situation where parties do not have equal bargaining power.” So, the court may rule out from the contract of which party is getting unfair agreement and mostly it will be defendant who has best chance of benefiting out of this contract due to unconscionable and in the example that would be Breanna.

The symbol for justice features a woman wearing a blindfold illustrating that the law should be applied the same way regardless of who the parties are. Does the UCC rule seem to contradict this? Which approach do you think is more ethical?

Basically, Lady Justice symbolizes on how justice is rendered without passion or prejudice but all the decisions are based on facts only and not letting emotional impressions of the accused comprise the judgment. On the other hand, UCC a federal created law which unifies the interstate commerce between states laws so it more convenient easy trading without less complications. Each state has their own laws thus this eliminates unfair and bias trade. As per the Phillips (2017), “In her left hand she grips a balance scale and, in her right, a double-edged sword. The blindfold introduces substantial ambiguity into her figure. In principle, blindfolded eyes signify impartiality and fairness, but in practice they can inhibit efforts to determine if scales are properly balanced or how the sword is being wielded.”

Thus, it can be argued that UCC would be more ethical because court using UCC as a guide will use moral reasoning to determine if the contract have any flaws and it’s not one-sided benefiting only one party. As Roger 2012, “if a contract for the sale of goods fails because of a valid offer and acceptance, consideration, legality, capacity, or lack of genuine assent, the failure may be raised as a defense if one party sues the other to enforce the agreement.” While Lady Justice will only give justice based on the facts and witness presented before her and thus emotional decisions involved in the case. You had produced enough facts in front of the court you win the case, simple as that.

Note that both Glamour and Shady Rest are businesses, and courts rarely find that contracts between two businesses are unconscionable. The rationale is that a business is a sophisticated entity, familiar with transactions and able to protect itself. Do you think Glamour and Shady Rest are in a comparable position in regard to this contract? Why or why not?

I do think that business have more strong background in terms of finance and vast resources that it can use rather than a single mother with a poor credit. Business are separate legal entity and most time people who owes the company’s or works for them gets a safe passage as all the faults comes on the entity. So comparing a business to single mother is would say that business is a sophisticated entity and it can take care of its self.

References

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of Business Law [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

Phillips, G. A. (2017). Icons of Just Is: Justice, suffering, and the artwork of samuel bak. Religions, 8(6), 108. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.339…

Ham, J., van den Bos, K., & Van Doom, E. A. (2009). Lady justice thinks unconsciously: Unconscious thought can lead to more accurate justice judgments. Social Cognition, 27(4), 509–521. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1521/…

Danzig, R. (1975). A Comment on the Jurisprudence of the Uniform Commercial Code. Stanford Law Review, 27(3), 621-635. doi:10.2307/1228330

Question 3:

Describe an example of a contract that you or someone you know entered into (e.g., rental agreement, cell phone agreement, property purchase or lease [e.g., car, home, furniture, etc.], home or car repair, or student loan agreement). In your description, be sure to provide specific contractual details including parties and subject matter involved. You must also address the following:

• Define the five essential elements of an enforceable contract, and demonstrate how each element relates to your example.
• Explain the circumstances of a breach of contract in your example, and discuss possible remedies.

The paper must be three to four pages in length (excluding title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. You must use at least two scholarly sources other than the textbook to support your claims. Cite your sources in-text and on the reference page. For information regarding APA samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.).

Carefully review the Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.) for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your activity.