one customer acknowledgment form prior to the events giving rise to the instant litigation. This in and of itself hardly establishes a prior course of dealing sufficient to allow Christy to unilaterally include the arbitration provision in the contract. Moreover, the fact that Christy repeatedly sent its customer acknowledgment form to PCS does not establish a course of dealing; the multiple forms merely demonstrated Christy’s desire to include the arbitration clause as a term of the contract. See In re CFLC, Inc., 166 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir.1999) (“Course of dealing analysis is not proper in an instance where the only action taken has been the repeated delivery of a particular form by one of the parties.”); Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91, 104 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion We hold that Christy’s customer
holding that the repeated sending of a writing which contains certain standard terms without any action with respect to the issues addressed by those terms cannot constitute a course of dealing which would incorporate a term of the writing otherwise excluded under  2207 because the repeated exchange of forms by the parties only tells buyer that seller desires certain terms given sellers failure to obtain buyers express assent to these terms before it will ship the program buyer can reasonably believe that while seller desires certain terms it has agreed to do business on other terms those terms expressly agreed upon by the parties holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law 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 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 holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision