Polygram, a French company, made records, tapes, and CDs. 32-03, a New York distributor, ordered goods from Polygram that were delivered in four shipments with written invoices. The invoices noted that payment was due in 60 days and that claims about problems with the goods must be made within three months of delivery. The companies had done business this way for years. 32-03's objections to the terms of sale arose for the first time in this incident, and 32-03 refused to pay, claiming that there was no written contract in violation of the statute of frauds and that it was trade custom in the industry for distributors to be allowed to return any defective goods for credit. Polygram claims that the terms of the agreement were violated and sued for payment. Who was right? [Polygram v. 32-03 Enterprises, 697 F. Supp. 132, E.D. NY (1988)]