audience, the subsequent statements, conduct, and the circumstances show an intent to lead any hearer to believe the statements were made seriously. There was testimony, though contradicted, that Treece specifically restated the offer over the telephone in response to an inquiry concerning whether the offer was serious. Treece, when given the opportunity to state that an offer was not intended, not only reaffirmed the offer but also asserted that $100,000 had been placed in escrow and directed Barnes to bring the punchboard to Seattle for inspection. The parties met, Barnes was given a receipt for the board, and he was told that the board would be taken to Chicago for inspection. In present day society it is known that gambling generates a great deal of income and that large sums are spent on its advertising and promotion. In that prevailing atmosphere, it was a credible statement that $100,000 would be paid to promote punchboards. The statements of the defendant and the surrounding circumstances reflect an objective manifestation of a contractual intent by Treece and support the finding of the trial court . The trial court properly categorized Treece's promise of $100,000 as a valid offer for a unilateral contract. The offer made promised that a contract would result upon performance of the act requested. Performance of the act with the intent to accept the offer constituted acceptance. The trial judge entered a specific finding that Barnes performed the requested act of acceptance when he produced a rigged and fraudulent punchboard. We concur with the trial court's holding that a binding unilateral contract was formed between Barnes and Treece and uphold the conclusions of the trial court in that regard. Treece also contends that an oral contract would be unenforceable pursuant to two statute of frauds provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, both provisions apply only to contracts for the sale of personal property or goods. Since the contract involved is not a sales transaction, the U.C.C. statute of frauds provisions are inapplicable. The judgment is affirmed. ANDERSON and JAMES, JJ., concur. Please answer the following questions: 1. What is the fact of this case? 2. What is the issue of this case? 3 . What is the argument of the defendant Treece? Did the court support defendant's argument? 4 . What did the court rule in this case? And why? 5. Please explain what does "breach of contract" mean? 6. Please explain what does "The judgment is affirmed" mean? 7. What does "concur" mean? 8. What is a unilateral contract? 9 . What does statute of frauds refer to? 2