The contract would not be considered a (25) because it was negotiated and made at arms' length.In particular, Happy World first made an offer which at common law under the (26) meant that the (27) had to be in the same manner as presented.It was not.Rather, the new manufacturer rejected the original offer, and the new manufacturer changed the terms of the offer and made a (28).It was not (29) before Happy World agreed to it which meant that Happy World still had the (30) which we exercised.Because our mutual intent at all times was manifested by our oral communications, the contract is not an (31).Nor would the new manufacturer have any basis to claim that the manufacturer's assent to the contract was obtained involuntarily by some action on our part which put their business at peril.This defense is typically referred to as (32).Even if the new manufacturer would have liked to have had better terms, there is nothing procedurally wrong with how the contract was entered into, nor was there anything substantially onerous about any of the provisions of the contract to allow the new manufacturer to claim that the agreement was an (33).