miss the mark. As the official comment to § 2-206 of the Uniform Commercial Code (adopted as A.R.S. § 44-2313) makes clear, this section was an attempt to simplify the common law rule that an acceptance of a contract could only be made in the manner and medium of the offer, that is, a written offer could only be accepted by an acceptance in writing. Litton is correct that this statute did not intend to change the common law rule that if an offer by its terms indicated that acceptance would only be made in a particular manner, one must comply with the particular manner. See UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, § 2-206, Comment 1 (1969). Nor is such an acceptance clause contrary to the Uniform Commercial Code. West Penn Power Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 236 Pa.Super. 413, 348 A.2d 144 (1975) (<HOLDING>) However, even under the common law, a contract
holding that home purchased with separate funds and titled in one spouses name was transmuted into marital property because home was used as marital residence and the other spouse contributed to payments and repairs on home holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because contraband was picked up by defendant rather than being delivered to his home and affidavit failed to provide facts establishing a nexus between contraband and defendants home holding that ucc  22061a envisions home office acceptance clauses holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home holding that babysitter living in home connected via ramp to defendants home had no authority to consent to search of defendants home