Coal Plant is negotiating terms of a deal to sell coal to Coal Miner over email. An email sent March $19$ from Miner to Plant requesting to buy coal stated that attached to the email were a cover sheet, a purchase order, and two additional items. However, the two additional items were not attached; only the cover sheet and purchase order were included in the email. After another few emails discussing the sale of coal, Plant printed the purchase order from the email chain, modified the amount of coal it planned to deliver to Miner from $9,000$ clean tons down to $6,000$ clean tons, signed the order and scanned it back to Plant. Plant sent back a reply email that said, $$We have a deal!$$ In May, Miner sent Plant the full text of the agreement, including the items it failed to attach to the March $19$ email. Those missing pages included a binding arbitration clause. After receiving Miner$$s $$full contract,$$ Plant began delivering coal to him in accordance with the contract. A dispute later arose, and now Miner would like to take action against Plant pursuant to the contract they agreed upon.

If the jurisdiction mirrors decisions from federal courts in West Virginia, will Miner be able to force Plant to arbitrate their dispute pursuant to the binding arbitration clause?

Group of answer choices

No$,$ because the UCC does not allow modification of offers.

Yes, because in modifying the amount of coal they agreed to be subject to subsequent modifications themselves.

Yes, because until delivery began all terms were merely terms in an offer, and the UCC allows either party to modify an offer in good faith until performance begins.

No$,$ because there was no meeting of the minds on this term, and modification of an existing contract requires express consent.

Yes, because they assented to the arbitration clause by delivering coal after they were aware the clause was present in the contract.