One of the most notable provisions of Article 2 is Section 2-207, which legal experts have described as a “form struggle.”  In a typical commercial sale, a buyer sends an order to a seller who then sends a confirmation or invoice to the buyer. The forms exchanged in this way may contain different terms. It then becomes difficult to determine definitively whether there is an agreement between the parties and, if so, what the conditions are. The “Fight forms” provision in section 2-207 should provide some guidance in defining the rules governing the resolution of disputes related to the use of forms.  Some courts have allowed Estoppel (if the other party reasonably relies on an oral agreement to its detriment) or fraud on the part of the party, which asserts that there is no agreement as an exception. These may allow a party to prove an agreement if there is no writing in which the obligation to write would be unfair.  In order to determine contractual terms in the event of a discrepancy between offer and acceptance, the code distinguishes between distributors` contracts and those of non-retailers. When a contract involves at least one non-merchant, the difference in acceptance acts as an acceptance on the terms of the offer. Additional conditions are proposals for additional agreements that are not valid unless the other party agrees. In deciding what the parties intended to do, the Tribunal will consider whether the contract is in a typically written manner, to what extent the agreement is detailed, whether the purpose of the contract is large or small, and whether it is necessary to cancel the parties` agreement. Contracts deemed too indeterminate are not applicable. A contract is too vague if its terms are so incomplete or uncertain that it is clear that the parties did not consider themselves to have concluded. To solve what was then considered a widespread problem of contract fraud, the English parliament passed the original fraud law in 1677. The law required certain types of contracts, including the sale of goods, to be written to be enforceable. England repealed its legislation in 1954 because it concerned the sale of goods. But the UCC continues to impose this rule. It has been decried by commentators because, instead of preventing fraud, some argue that it does promote fraud when the parties can claim that the absence of a letter allows them to evade the application of an otherwise valid agreement.  Whether the contract is enforceable or not depends on the purpose of the letter. If it turns out that the parties considered the oral agreement to be complete and that they considered the written contract only as proof of the terms of their oral agreement, the oral contract is enforceable. See Goad v. Rogers, 103 Cal.App.2d 294 (1951). However, if it turns out that the parties did not intend to be bound by the oral agreement until it was written, the oral agreement will only be enforceable if it is actually written.