Critical legal reasoning case

Norma English made an offer to purchase a house owned by Michael and Laurie Montgomery (Montgomery) for $272,000. In her offer, English also proposed to purchase certain personal propertypaving stones and a fireplace screen worth a total of $100from Montgomery. When Montgomery received English's offer, Montgomery made many changes to English's offer, including deleting the paving stones and fireplace screen from the personal property that English wanted. When English received the Montgomery counteroffer, English accepted and initialed all of Montgomery's changes except that English did not initial the change that deleted the paving stones and fireplace screen from the deal.

Subsequently, Montgomery notified English that because English had not completely accepted the terms of Montgomery's counteroffer, Montgomery was withdrawing from the deal. That same day, Montgomery signed a contract to sell the house to another buyer for $285,000. English sued Montgomery for specific performance of the contract. Montgomery defended, arguing that the mirror image rule was not satisfied because English had not initialed the provision that deleted the paving stones and fireplace screen.

Question: Is there an enforceable contract between English and Montgomery? (Response must be supported by details and examples. More than 200words)