Sally Hilkene, owner of a grocery and goods store called Churchill's, signed a lease with Crestwood Shops to expand her store into the neighboring shop formerly occupied by a bookstore. Upon her inspection of the store, she discovered the presence of mold, a faulty foundation due to leaky water, and a defective HVAC system. She notified Crestwood of these problems and requested their resolution before she could begin conducting business at the location. Crestwood policy required that it acquire three bids for any project over $2,500, and it began soliciting bids for the problems. Hilkene became impatient and sent an e-mail to Scott Pardon, an agent for Crestwood. Among other concerns, Hilkene wrote, "I wish to release myself from the lease by March 24th, if the owners can't resolve the issues which cause concern for myself, Andy Fritzel, and my workers. More specifically the stachybotris [the mold] present in the space." Crestwood responded by accepting this statement as an offer to terminate the lease for the former bookstore. Hilkene filed a declaratory judgment requesting a declaration that the lease had not been terminated, arguing that Crestwood's "acceptance" did not comply with the mirror-image rule by immediately releasing the par- ties whereas the offer to terminate was reliant on a condition precedent. Do you agree with Hilkene's argument? Why or why not?