James and Barbara Gibson were engaged in negotiations over the purchase of a house, having made an offer for exist280,000. On June 6, the Gibsons received a counteroffer from the seller, containing several additional terms and conditions with no mention of the price. The seller told the Gibsons that if they wished to accept the counteroffer, they should sign it and return it immediately. The Gibsons signed it, and at 9 a.m. on June 6, Barbara handed the sealed envelope to her assistant with instructions to mail it for her. The assistant did so, but not until the next day June 7. At 11 a.m. on June 6, the seller Barbara that the counteroffer was revoked because the seller had intended to raise the price to exist298,000 but had not included this term in the counteroffer. The Gibsons sued the seller, claiming that they had accepted the counteroffer before it was revoked. Barbara Gibson argued that she had placed the acceptance in the "course of the transmission" when she gave it to her assistant. The seller contended that no contract had been formed, because the acceptance had been received after the revocation. How would a court most likely rule on the Gibson's claim that her acceptance was in the "course of transmission" when she gave it to her assistant? a. The court most likely held that the acceptance was effective, because the Gibsons had intended to accept immediately. b. The court most likely held that the acceptance was effective, because the error should be assessed against the one who made it. c. The court most likely held that the acceptance was not effective, because the acceptance was not placed in the course of transmission beyond Barbara Gibson's control. d. The court most likely held that the acceptance was not effective, because the seller did not receive the acceptance until much later