Sartorial, Inc., a new business enterprise about to commence the manufacture of clothing, entered into a written agreement to purchase all of its monthly requirements of a certain elasticized fabric for a period of three years from the Stretch Company at a specified unit price and agreed delivery and payment terms. The agreement also provided: 1. The parties covenant not to assign this contract. 2. Payments coming due hereunder for the first two months shall be made directly by Sartorial to Virginia Wear and Son, Inc., a creditor of Stretch. Stretch promptly made an "assignment of the contract" to Finance Company as security for a $100,000 loan. Sartorial subsequently ordered, took delivery of, and paid Stretch the agreed price ($5,000) for Sartorial's requirement of the fabric for the first month of its operation.Assume for this question only that, two weeks after making the $5,000 payment to Stretch, Sartorial by written notice to Stretch terminated the agreement for purchase of the elasticized fabric because market conditions had in fact forced Sartorial out of the clothing manufacture business. In an immediate suit by Finance Company against Sartorial for total breach, which of the following would be useful in Sartorial's defense?
Stretch's rights under its agreement with Sartorial were personal and therefore nonassignable. Stretch's "assignment of the contract" to Finance Company to secure a loan would normally be interpreted as a delegation of Stretch's duties under the contract as well as an assignment of its rights; and its duties, owed to Sartorial, were personal and therefore nondelegable.  The original contract between Sartorial and Stretch was unenforceable by either party for want of a legally sufficient consideration for Stretch's promise to supply Sartorial's requirements of the elasticized fabric. Sartorial ceased in good faith to have any further requirements for elasticized fabric