3. Kendall Gardner agreed to buy from B & C Shavings a specially built shaving mill to produce wood shavings for poultry processors. B & C faxed an invoice to Gardner reflecting the purchase price of $86,200, with 30% down payment and the balance due before shipment. Gardner paid the down payment. B & C finished the mill and wrote Gardner a letter telling him to pay the balance due or lose the down payment. By then, Gardner had lost his customers for the wood shavings, could not pay the balance due, and asked for the return of the down payment. Did these parties have an enforceable contract under the Statute of Frauds? Explain.

4. Allied Shelving and Equipment, Inc. sells and installs shelving systems. National Deli, LLC, contracted with Allied to provide and install a parallel rack system (a series of large shelves) in Nationals warehouse. Both parties were dissatisfied with the result. National filed suit in a Florida state course against Allied, which filed a counter claim. Each contended that the other had materially breached the contract. The course applied common law contract to rule in Nationals favor on both claims. Allied appealed, arguing that the court should have applied UCC. When does a course apply common law principles to a contract that involves both goods and services? In this case, why might an appellate course rule that the UCC should be applied instead?