"Dress Shop Problems." Susie, who has a ladies' dress shop, reached an oral agreement with Kim, a wholesaler, to purchase 100 dresses for $80 each, with the dresses to be delivered within 30 days. Kim later orally agreed to a modification whereby she would add ten belts to go along with certain dresses at no extra charge. Kim did so because she wanted to maintain Susie's good will. Susie's sent Kim a memo confirming their oral agreement. Including the modification, but heard nothing. When the dresses did not arrive within 30 days, Susie checked with Kim. Kim told her that their agreement was no good because Kim never signed anything and that the UCC does not apply in the retail Which of the following is true regarding whether the agreement between Susie and Kim for the sale of dresses satisfied the writing requirement of the UCC? The agreement is likely binding because under the UCC, if two merchants have an oral agreement, there is no requirement of a writing so long as another witness is willing to confirm that within 30 days of the agreement, one of the parties memorialized the agreement by a memorandum to the even if it was not sent to the other party. The agreement is not binding because Kim never signed anything by which she agreed to the terms of the oral agreement. The agreement is binding because the UCC has no requirement of a writing under any circumstances. The agreement is likely binding because under the UCC, if two merchants have an oral agreement, a written memo from either party to the other is deemed to satisfy the statute of frauds, even if it is not acknowledged by the receiving party. If it is not objected to within 10 days of receipt, the oral agreement, memorialized by the memo, is binding. The agreement is not binding because Susie did not send Kim a registered letter memorializing the oral conversation as is recurred by the UCC. "Dress Shop Problems." Susie, who has a ladies' dress shop, reached an oral agreement with Kim, a wholesaler, to purchase 100 dresses for $80 each, with the dresses to be delivered within 30 days. Kim later orally agreed to a modification whereby she would add ten belts to go along with certain dresses at no extra charge. Kim did so because she wanted to maintain Susie's good will. Susie's sent Kim a memo confirming their oral agreement. Including the modification, but heard nothing. When the dresses did not arrive within 30 days, Susie checked with Kim. Kim told her that their agreement was no good because Kim never signed anything and that the UCC does not apply in the retail Which of the following is true regarding whether the agreement between Susie and Kim for the sale of dresses satisfied the writing requirement of the UCC? The agreement is likely binding because under the UCC, if two merchants have an oral agreement, there is no requirement of a writing so long as another witness is willing to confirm that within 30 days of the agreement, one of the parties memorialized the agreement by a memorandum to the even if it was not sent to the other party. The agreement is not binding because Kim never signed anything by which she agreed to the terms of the oral agreement. The agreement is binding because the UCC has no requirement of a writing under any circumstances. The agreement is likely binding because under the UCC, if two merchants have an oral agreement, a written memo from either party to the other is deemed to satisfy the statute of frauds, even if it is not acknowledged by the receiving party. If it is not objected to within 10 days of receipt, the oral agreement, memorialized by the memo, is binding. The agreement is not binding because Susie did not send Kim a registered letter memorializing the oral conversation as is recurred by the UCC