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? First, the Wentzes were to deliver to Campbell all Chantenay red cored carrots grown on their farm during the 1974 season. Second, the Wentzes were contracted at $30 per ton. However, Campbell Soup drafted a provision prohibiting farmers/sellers from selling to anyone else unless they rejected the carrots. Not to mention, a liquidated damages provision of $50 per ton if seller breached, but no similar provision in the event that Campbell breached. Lastly, Campbell also gave themselves the right to determine who could buy carrots they rejected. • Did the Wentzes perform under the contract? …show more content…
First, the Wentzes had harvested 100 tons of carrots at a market price of $90 per ton but they didn’t want to accept $30 per ton from Campbell. As a result, they sold 62 tons to another to a farmer who sold some to Campbell. Overall, the Wentzes breached the contract with Campbell. • Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case? The court did not find any specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy, in this case, ruling in favor of the Wentzes.“The judge ruled that the uniqueness of the subject matter of the contract, Chantenay red cored carrots, would have justified granting Cambell’s request for specific performance. To point out, the harshness of Campbell’s standard form contract rendered it unconscionable and, therefore, a court of equity need not enforce the agreement” (Goldberg, 2003). • Why did the court refuse to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract? The court refused to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract because “the court felt the contract was extremely one-sided. [ Also], 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, …show more content…
Must be remembered, the Chantenay red cored carrots are considered as unique goods. In effect, this would give Campbell right to have first dibs on the yield. Specifically, Campbell will be able to set more equitable terms around the per ton of price of the red cored carrots they paid for from the farmers. On the positive side, both the farmers and Campbell will have the fair percentage of the Chantenay red cored carrots harvested at the end of the year. In detail, the contract states if Campbell does not purchase the crop within a set number of days from harvest or not purchase the rejected crops then the farmers have the rights to sell the Chantenay red cored carrots to whomever they choose. Overall, the contract is unconscionable for Campbell to occupy a large percentage of the farmland and not fairly compensate the farmers of those
Facts of the Case: Darleen Suggs started working and helped maintain the produce business with the decedent, Junior Earl Norris, from 1973 until his death in 1983. During this time and according to several witnesses, the plaintiff did most of the farm work, as well as drive to markets 60 miles away, without aid of the decedent. She also handled all finances and deposited them into their joint bank account, giving her the reason to believe they had an implied contract that she was a partner and would receive one-half of the profits. In
Friganim Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. Facts: Friganim Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered into. In the first of the two contracts, Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. (smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract than the first agreement)
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Pagan writes a captivating story mingled with the challenges of the Eastern Shore legal system. This book gives a complete explanation backed up by research and similar cases as evidence of the ever-changing legal system. It should be a required reading for a history or law student.
argument did a better job drawing a clear image in my head. " For the timber and plantation barons of Indonesiaâ€s homes and livelihoods"(pg 4, 2nd paragraph). As in this phrase from the issue. the producers-the barons in this case-value how much crop can they.
"UNITED STATES v. JONES." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 18 Nov. 2013 .
McIntosh v. Milano, 168 N.J. Super. 466, 483-85, 403 A.2d 500 (Law Div. 1979) – Primary Source
pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and ... are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used”. I agree with the court’s ruling, because the peach pit fragment violated the consumer’s expectation test and the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used assumption. When eating a can of peach halves, an ordinary consumer would expect that the peaches are prepared in a manner that there are only peach flesh and juice or syrup in the can. In this case the can contained an additional element that was not expected to be in a can of peach halves. Additionally, as a result of this unexpected element a consumer sustained
The appellants’ first claim alleges unfair competition from defendant’s business actions, which violated Sec. 43a of Lanham Act and Michigan common law. The equitable relief under both Michigan common law and Sec. 43a was noted the “likelihood of confusion” standard by the district court.
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
Before this Court may address whether a preliminary injunction is warranted, it must first address the NFL's argument that the Norris-LaGuardia Act precludes any injunctive relief here, as well as its argument that the Court should defer this matter, or at least a portion of it, to the National Labor Relations Board under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction— issues that the NFL contends are jurisdictional. (Id. at 9-10, 36 (Mem. at 1-2, 28) (characterizing these two issues as "jurisdictional").
In the movie “Food Inc” we saw how the food industry keeps their farmers under their control. Food incorporation sets new protocols that require the farmers to keep purchasing more on dept. As a result of loans and only $18,000 annually (Kenner) they are stuck in a hole that they can’t get out of. I find many things disturbing about this. First off, I find it disturbing that he picked a poorly educated farming area. It seems obvious that the farmers don’t know what they got into and don’t have any knownldge of how to get out. I find it an example of poor unionization within the small farmers that are to be blamed not the ones that find out how to exploit it (Kenner).
HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
...‘Consideration: Practical benefit and the Emperor’s new clothes’ in Beatson and Friedmann (eds). Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 1995);