1. CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ 172 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1948)
Case Brief
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

2. CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ
PURPOSE: Campbell Soup illustrates equitable principles of adequacy of legal remedy and unconscionable contract as well as remedy of specific performance.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

3. CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ
CAUSE OF ACTION: Contract. (Seeking the equitable remedy of specific performance.)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

4. CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ
FACTS: Campbell Soup made output contracts with farmers, providing seed and agreeing to purchase the entire crop at fixed prices. The Wentz brothers were farmers who grew Chantenay carrots for Campbell. In 1947, the scarcity of these carrots raised the price per ton to $90. Since the contract price was $30, the Wentz’s sold most of their carrots to Lojeski, who sold half to Campbell. Campbell’s suit for specific performance was denied at trial on the grounds that Campbell had an adequate remedy at law (difference between contract price and purchase price).
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

5. CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ
ISSUE: Whether the remedy of specific performance should be available to Campbell.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

6. CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ
HOLDING: No, but not for the reasons given by the trial court.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

7. CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ
REASONING: Although trial court was wrong in holding adequacy of remedy at law (Campbell could not replace the carrots on the market because they were unavailable), the appellate court would not enforce the contract in equity because it was unconscionable (contract drafted by Campbell was too one-sided, providing numerous rights and remedies for Campbell and virtually no protection for the Wentz brothers).
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.