Reference no: EM132260804

Discussion 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?

Discussion 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?