Clear Lakes, a fish hatchery, had a deal with Griffith, a trout grower, under which Griffith would buy small trout from Clear Lakes and sell them back when they had grown to "market size." Trout were priced at a set rate per pound. The deal was to be for six years. After three years, Clear Lake's customers began to demand larger fish than the 12- to 16-ounce fish delivered by Griffith. Clear Lakes began to take fewer fish and waited longer to get them, leaving Griffith with too many fish. Some adjustments were made, but Griffith was deeply in debt and could not easily change his operations.

1. The Idaho high court held that by their actions the parties understood the meaning of "market size," so there was an agreement. How could Clear Lakes have avoided this problem?
2. Since market conditions changed, and customers began to want bigger fish, how could Clear Lakes and Griffith have adjusted their relationship in a friendly manner?