In the Heritage Technologies v. Phigro-Tech case, the two companies had agreed to a price change of $0.01. When Heritage's lawyer pointed out to his client the change to $0.10, the Heritage officer did not tell Phibro. The change was subtle in appearance but important in its financial impact. Phibro sued Heritage. Which is most true? The court will probably look to see who drafted the contract and then reform the contract if there is clear and convincing evidence of what the true intent was O None of these choices O Heritage will win because the court will figure that Phibro should have been more careful O Phigro will automatically win because they will be injured otherwise