Doughty v. Idaho Frozen Foods Corp.
736 P.2d 460, 112 Idaho 791, 4 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1041 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract is not unconscionable merely because it allocates market and production risks that ultimately result in a disadvantageous outcome for one party. Furthermore, a contract does not lack mutuality of obligation if one party's duty to perform is conditioned on certain requirements being met, as a conditional promise constitutes valid consideration.
Facts:
- Gerald Doughty, a farmer, entered into a preharvest contract to sell a portion of his anticipated potato crop to Idaho Frozen Foods (IFF), a processor, in order to secure financing for growing the crop.
- The contract used a form negotiated between IFF and the Potato Growers of Idaho (PGI), an independent bargaining organization.
- The contract's pricing structure was based on the percentage of potatoes weighing ten ounces or more; a higher percentage resulted in a higher price, while a lower percentage resulted in a steeper price reduction.
- The agreement gave IFF the option to refuse delivery if the crop contained less than ten percent ten-ounce or larger potatoes, while Doughty did not have a similar option.
- Doughty sold the remainder of his crop to another processor and on the 'fresh pack' market.
- Unexpected weather conditions caused Doughty's crop to yield only eight percent ten-ounce potatoes.
- Due to the small potato size, the contract price for Doughty's crop dropped significantly to $2.57 per hundredweight.
- After delivering potatoes to IFF for four days at the lower price, Doughty refused to deliver any more.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Doughty filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court, seeking to have his contract with Idaho Frozen Foods (IFF) declared unenforceable.
- Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, Doughty sold the remaining potatoes and placed the proceeds in a court-controlled bank account pending the case's resolution.
- The district court ruled in favor of IFF, holding that the contract was enforceable.
- Doughty (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contract for the sale of potatoes unenforceable for unconscionability and lack of mutuality of obligation where the price is tied to potato size and the buyer retains a conditional option to reject the crop if it fails to meet a minimum size requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Walters, Chief Judge
No. The contract is not unenforceable for unconscionability or lack of mutuality. A contract is not procedurally unconscionable when its terms were negotiated by a representative body with substantial bargaining power and the party was not forced into the agreement by extreme need. It is not substantively unconscionable when its terms, though disadvantageous in hindsight, reflect the commercial needs of the parties and represent a bargained-for allocation of risk. The contract does not fail for lack of mutuality because IFF's promise was not illusory; its obligation to purchase was conditional upon the potatoes meeting the specified size requirements, which constitutes valid consideration.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for declaring a commercial contract unconscionable, particularly when a form agreement results from negotiations by an industry group. It clarifies that unfavorable outcomes due to external factors, such as weather, do not render a contract's risk-allocation terms oppressive. The court's analysis of mutuality of obligation underscores that the doctrine requires the existence of valid consideration, not identical or coextensive rights, thereby upholding the enforceability of contracts with conditional performance options.
