Bentley is a manager at a high-end printing company called Graphic Communications Inc. (GCI). GCI designs and produces posters and other materials for advertising purposes for a variety of clients, including a local symphony orchestra and Main Street University. After GCI received a large order from the university that required a special press, Bentley was assigned to locate a suitable press, negotiate the purchase terms, and arrange for delivery no later than July 1. Bentley negotiated a price with Armstrong Press Manufacturing for the Armstrong Model 2000 printing press. The press was sufficiently large as to require that it be delivered in three separate pieces, and then assembled on-site. One factor in choosing Armstrong as a vendor was that GCI had used Armstrong before for purchases of smaller presses and had been satisfied with their products and services. In those previous transactions, GCI had used their own standard preprinted purchase order and no disputes developed. Once the parties agreed on the price, Bentley issued a preprinted purchase order. The purchase order was one page long and had very few terms. It contained only the price, description of the press, the date of the purchase order, a provision that agreed that all three pieces of the press would be delivered and operational by July 1, and Bentley’s signature. After Armstrong received the purchase order, Armstrong’s manager handwrote the phrase “Acknowledged as a destination contract. To be delivered and assembled in three installments to GCI over May” in the delivery section of the purchase order. Armstrong’s the manager then signed the purchase order, faxed the purchase order back to Bentley, and began to process the order. Armstrong shipped the first part of the press using its delivery service. Before delivery, the the truck was involved in an accident and the first part of the press was destroyed. 1. Is Armstrong's addition of the delivery term binding on GCI? Explain the UCC analysis governing the additional terms added by Armstrong. 2. Does the fact that the parties had a history of past dealings with each other impact your analysis in Question 1 above? Why or why not? 3. When did the title to the goods pass in this contract? Who has the risk of loss? How is your answer related to your analysis of Question 1 above? [Show Less]