Peerless Wall & Window is in Pennsylvania. In 1994, Peerless installed Point of Sale v6.5 business software to run cash registers, manage inventory, and link the stores electronically. Synchronics, a Tennessee company, developed and sold the software. V6.5 was written with code that used only a two-digit year field. So 1999 was stored as "99." This meant that all dates were interpreted as falling within the twentieth century. The software was licensed under a shrink-wrap agreement printed on the envelopes containing the disks. The agreement included a clause that limited remedies to replacement within ninety days if there was a defect in the disks and stated, "The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the Software is with you." In 1995, Synchronics stopped selling and supporting V6.5.In 1997, Sychronics told Peerless that the software should be replaced the two-digit year field would cause a problem in 2000. Peerless sued in federal district because court for breach contract. Synchronies claimed its liability was limited as provided in the -shrink-wrap agreement and moved for summary judgment. How would a court most likely rule on the enforceability of the shrink-wrap agreement in this case? a. The court most likely held that the shrink-wrap agreement was enforceable, because Peerless was notified of the terms and had a chance to return the software if it did not like the terms. b. The court most likely held that the shrink-wrap agreement was enforceable, because shrink wrap agreements are always upheld. c. The court most likely held that the shrink-wrap agreement was not enforceable, because the agreement unfairly limited Peerless's ability to recover for breach of contract. d. The court most likely held that the shrink-wrap agreement was not enforceable, because Peerless proved that it had not read the terms of the agreement