I assume that this question is about Campbell v. Wentz and have edited the question accordingly. If this is the correct case, the court refused to enforce the contract that Campbell’s Soup had with the Wentz family because it ruled that the contract was unconscionable.
One principle of contract law is that contracts cannot be unconscionable. That is, they cannot be so one sided as to be completely unfair. In this case, the court ruled that the contract was so biased in favor of the soup company that it should not be enforced.
The court ruled this mainly because of two clauses. If the company could not take delivery of the carrots, it could still prevent the Wentzes from selling to someone else unless it gave them written permission to do so. In addition, if the Wentzes could not deliver the carrots (for example, if there were a railroad strike), they could not sell to anyone other than Campbell’s and would presumably lose the value of the carrots. The court ruled that these clauses were excessively favorable to the company and that the contract should therefore not be enforced.