Plea bargains result from agreements by defendants to enter guilty pleas in exchange for consideration from the prosecution. If the prosecution fails to perform its side of the bargain, then a court may rely on the principles of traditional contract law and grant specific enforcement of a bargain. Courts require bargain creation, subsequent reliance on the agreement by the defendant, and nonperformance by the prosecution before they will enforce the agreement. In 'Cooper v. United States' (1979), the court moved two steps beyond precedent by granting specific performance although both agreement and reliance were absent. However, the court based its decision on the defendant's rights to substantive due process during plea negotiations and effective assistance of counsel; contract law considerations were not addressed. It is argued that although 'Cooper' represents an important extension of procedural safeguards to the process of plea negotiation, the court's reliance on concepts of substantive due process is extraordinary and unnecessary. A shift in emphasis from substantive to procedural due process would have strengthened the holding. The United States Supreme Court and the lower courts have used contract terminology in plea bargaining cases. In addition, procedural due process safeguards the rights and interests of parties affected by governmental action outside of the courtroom and whenever abbreviated judicial processes are used. Thus, procedural due process considerations are applicable in the 'Cooper' case. One hundred thirty-nine footnotes are included in the article.