After her female Rottweiler, Lady had won her fifth consecutive "Best in Show" at the annual, world-renowned Metropolis Kennel Club Dog Show, Jada was approached by people interested in puppies from Lady. Jada jotted down on a blank piece of paper: "DeAndre shall be entitled to purchase the "pick of the litter" from each of the next three litters borne by Lady. Pup to be selected no earlier than eight weeks of age and no later than twelve weeks of age. Price to be determined by Jada at time of selection." Five months later, Lady had her next litter. When the pups were nine weeks old, DeAndre examined the litter and picked a pup. Pups from litters of other champion Rottweilers ranged in cost from $500 to $2500. DeAndre offered a check for $3000, but Jada demanded $10,000 because she wished to retain the puppy that DeAndre selected. Pick the choice that best represents the outcome should DeAndre choose to go to court; hint--the answer rests on your understanding of the differences between 1) common law and the UCC and 2) the meaning of "good faith" in contracts. Explain your reasoning for that choice and why each of the other choices is incorrect.

a)An arbitrator will be appointed by the court to settle the dispute between the parties.

b)The court will set a reasonable price if the $10,000 is unacceptable to DeAndre.

c)Having designated $3,000 as a reasonable price, DeAndre may purchase the pup for that amount.

d)Jada's power to set the price for her own puppies renders her obligations under the contract illusory, and it will not be enforced.