Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the back of the invoice that CDW sent BYS form “part of the contract unless ... they materially, alter it.” Iowa Code § 554.2207(2). Whether the Terms and Conditions materially alter the contract depends on whether the terms would result in “surprise” to BVS. Iowa Code § 554.2207, cmt. 4. Prior to this dispute, BVS and CDW entered into hundreds of transactions. Furthermore, prior to this dispute, BVS received the Terms and Conditions from CDW hundreds of times. See Harb Affidavit, CDW App’x at 245 (stating that every order confirmation',' ing that additional terms did not materially alter the parties’ contract because the parties had exchanged the . term's numerous times prior to the transaction at issue and, therefore, there was no surprise); Sudenga Indus., Inc., 894 F.Supp. at 1238 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court finds that the January 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the fine print terms at the bottom of an invoice imposing attorney fees were not terms upon which the parties agreed and therefore did not become part of the contract (B) holding that agreement had been reached where the plaintiff had proposed terms for providing his services to the defendant and the parties then entered into a business relationship  despite defendants claim it never agreed to the plaintiffs proposed salary terms for that relationship (C) holding that possession was obtained when goods were received at the debtors facility and was not dependent on the contractual terms between the parties (D) holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement (E) holding that the terms on the back of an invoice sent after the parties entered into a contract were enforceable because the invoices were issued relatively contemporaneously with the shipment of goods  the parties dealings involved identical invoice provisions throughout the parties relationship  additional terms were found in the invoices that were not in the purchase orders and the plaintiff never exercised any opportunity to delete these additional terms
Output (English): holding that possession was obtained when goods were received at the debtors facility and was not dependent on the contractual terms between the parties