a) What is the disputed clause?
b) Which party proposed this term?
c) When did OMT first see the tax clause?
d) But Bayway sent a fax confirming the agreement. Didn't that fax contain the tax clause?
e) What does "incorporate by reference" mean?
f) You mean that OMT can supposedly agree to terms it never saw?
g) Isn't that crazy?
h) Doesn't the mirror image rule preclude a contract here?
i) Under 2-207, the offeree might include additional terms or different terms. What is the distinction between those terms?
j) Which are we dealing with here, different or additional terms?
k) Additional terms become part of the contract between the parties except in three cases. What are they?
l) Which is at issue here?
m) The court holds that OMT has the burden of proof. What does that mean?
n) What must OMT demonstrate to prove material alteration?
o) How does OMT fare in proving surprise and hardship?