Juan orally offers to sell 50 one-pound bags of "Dark Roast Columbian Coffee" to Ricky, who owns a local Mexican restaurant. Assume that Juan's offer contains sufficiently definite terms to create a power of acceptance in the offeree. Immediately after Juan makes the offer, Ricky says, "I accept - business has been picking up, so I think I'll need that much coffee." No agreement was ever written down or signed. When dealing with other sellers in the past, Ricky has always paid anywhere from $15 to $18 per one-pound bag of coffee. The next day, Juan delivers all of the coffee to Ricky's restaurant, as the parties agreed. It turns out that Ricky had second thoughts about buying that much coffee in one order, so when the bill for the coffee arrived a couple days later, Ricky called Juan and said he wanted to cancel the deal. Ricky ultimately refused to pay the bill. Ricky claims that there was not an enforceable agreement between the parties. Is Ricky correct? (Take your time on this one! Maybe even open up your calculator app...) Group of answer choices No, because the partial performance exception the UCC statute of frauds applies under the circumstances. No, because the past dealings between the parties indicate there was intent to enter into a contract. Yes, because the agreement did not contain all essential contract terms. Yes, because the UCC statute of frauds will only enforce this sort of agreement if it is memorialized in a signed writing