Question: A company sued a meat distribution market, claiming breach of contract following the market's failure to pay money owed on fi ve notices of purchases (NOPs) as well as collection of accounts under the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9. The district court held that the market did in fact breach its contract because the NOPs were valid and enforceable contracts. The meat distribution market appealed the order of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which found the market liable for $1,010,435. The appellant meat market argued that the NOPs were not valid and enforceable contracts because the invoices "were false and unattached to the NOPs when the plaintiff company received the signed and delivered copies." On appeal, the court noted that the general manager of the meat distribution market did in fact sign the NOPs and that the NOPs were valid and enforceable despite missing invoices; both parties agreed that the dollar amount indicating the money the meat market owed the plaintiff company was clear and present on the face of each NOP, and thus "the essential term at issue was conspicuously available for interpretation by both parties." Do you agree with the rulings of the district and appeal courts, which determined that Madison Financial LLC had an enforceable contract claim under the statute of frauds? Why or why not?