Melad, C.P.A., is an Indonesian firm that makes cake platters and related products for the baking services industry. In 2001, Melad set up a wholly owned subsidiary, Mehu U.S.A., to market its products in the United States. In 2004, after orally agreeing with Arpita Cake Corp. (Arpita) that Arpita would become the exclusive U.S. distributor of Melad products, Melad terminated all of Mehus current distributors and informed all of Mehus customers that Arpita would be the exclusive distributor of its products in the future. Relations between Melad and Arpita Cake deteriorated over the next several months, and eventually Melad sued for breach of contract. Arpita contended that their contract was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Although their agreement had never been reduced to a writing, at one point Ramandeep David, the marketing director of Arpita, summarized the terms of the agreement in a memorandum on Arpitas letterhead that was sent to Arpitas law department. The memo included some handwritten notes by David, which, David stated, represented more clearly our current position regarding the agreement. Will the memorandum signed by David constitute a sufficient writing under the UCC Statute of Frauds provisions? Discuss.