Required information [Wedding flowers] Serena planned a backyard wedding for her daughter, Naomi, and contacted Flo's Flowers. Flo and Serena discussed terms for Naomi's wedding, including purple flowers, delivery at 3:00 p.m., and a total cost of $2,000. Flo e-mailed Serena a ten-page pre-printed contract in tiny print, which Serena thought was very long and confusing, but Flo had the best flowers in town. Serena glanced at the contract and noticed the price of Three Thousand Dollars," which was not what they agreed. She typed a line through it and typed "$2K" in the margin along with her initials. Since she did not see anything about flower color, she added on the last page "As discussed, please provide purple flowers." She also noticed the delivery time was 5:00 p.m. Since they had agreed on 3:00 p.m., she changed that item, and then typed her name at the bottom of the contract and e-mailed it back to Flo. When the big day came two months later, Flo's delivery truck did not arrive until 5:00 p.m., and brought pink flower arrangements. The delivery workers gave Serena an invoice for $3,000 and demanded payment. Serena was livid and demanded they provide purple flowers, as agreed. Unfortunately, they had no flowers left in the delivery truck and the store was closed. Guests were arriving and Serena had no choice but to use the pink flowers. She begrudgingly handed over a check for $2,000. The following day, Flo called demanding payment of the remaining one thousand dollars. Serena told her she would not pay because the flowers were pink, the price was wrong, and they arrived late. Flo referred Serena to Section 29 of the contract which states, "Pigment may be redesigned at any time." Flo claims that pink was proper under Section 29, and any court would interpret the contract in Flo's favor. Would Section 29 likely be enforced? Multiple Choice Yes, Serena should have read the contract more carefully and, if there were any ambiguity, she should have clarified it prior to signing. Yes, Section 29 should be interpreted according to its plain language. o No, Section 29 is ambiguous and should be interpreted against Flo. Yes, Section 29 is ambiguous and should be interpreted against Serena. Yes, Serena signed the contract