This is for California Courts

Ed and Josie are buyers and sellers of used motorcycle parts. They have been competitors for years, but also have sold each other parts when either got an order for a part not in inventory. They feel like one of them should do the used parts business, not both. (They both do some repair business as well.)

They were not able to complete all the details of an agreement and became impatient. They are used to buying and selling from each other very fast when they need a part and working out reasonable terms and prices, based on normal practices and established pricing.

Ed's attorney suggested a bold approach, in which Ed would take some risks of being wrong on his estimates of value. The attorney suggested a sell/buy offer, but Ed did not supply all the details that his attorney suggested.

Ed has now made a "sell/buy offer" to Josie, with almost no details. Instead of giving only one choice, like a normal offer, he has offered to either sell his entire present inventory of used parts to Josie for $185,000 or buy her present inventory of used parts for $195,000. This offer from Ed is in writing.

Assume that the sales article of the Uniform Commercial Code applies. If Josie accepts either choice, has a valid contract been made under the Uniform Commercial Code? Why or why not? If not, what terms need to be added? Argue both sides.