COMMERCIAL LAW (UCC ARTICLE 2) MULTIPLE CHOICE

Mandy was theowner ofBeech Hotel Suites.On May 15,Mandy received a telephonecallfromSue,adistributorofhotelsupplies.Sueofferedtosell1,000 airconditioners at $350.00 each,payable 90 days after delivery, promising delivery no later than June 15.

OnMay 16, Mandy telephoned Sue and accepted theoffer.The following day, Mandy mailed the following memo:"Please be advised that I shall takea 15 percentdiscountforcashpayment sevendaysafterinstallation."Suereceivedthis correspondenceonMay20.OnJune1,SuesentatelegramtoMandystating"It's

apparentwedon'thaveanenforceablecontractineffect.Iwillnotbedelivering

) theairconditionersonJune15,oranyothertime."

Mandy bringssuitagainstSueforabreach ofcontract.Whichofthefollowing is the most accurate statement regarding Sue's defenses:

1. Sue'sdefenseis valid, becausethemailed memo wasinconsistent withthe terms of Sue's oral offer.

1. Sue's defense isvalid, because Mandy's memowasnotsufficient to indicate a contract was formed.

1. Sue's defenseisnotvalid because Suefailedto respondto Mandy's memo in a reasonable period of time.

1. Sue'sdefenseisnotvalid becauseunder theUCC theStatute ofFrauds is not applicable in agreements between merchants.