Betty's Boutique orally contracts with Denny's Design House for 10,000 matchbooks at the price of 10 cents per matchbook. The matchbooks are to be embossed with a logo to be designed by Denny's Design promoting Betty's Boutique.

Price, payment terms, and delivery terms are agreed upon between the parties. Denny's Design creates the logo, gets Betty's approval of the design, and begins applying the logo on the matchbook covers.

Denny's Design has almost finished the order when Betty's Boutique calls to say that it has decided to cancel the order. Denny's Design sues, but Betty's Boutique states that the agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Who wins?

Group of answer choices

Denny's Design House wins. This situation falls under an exception to the statute of frauds.

Denny's Design House wins. This is a service contract for design of a logo. Therefore, the UCC, including the statute of frauds provisions of Article 2, do not apply.

Betty's Boutique wins. This is a contract for $1000. The statute of frauds requires all contracts in excess of $500 to be in writing.

Betty's Boutique wins. The statute of frauds only applies to merchants. Betty's Boutique is not a merchant in this instance because it intended to give the matchbooks away and not sell them.