prevented the consummation of a contract when these forms are exchanged, Section 2-207 recognizes that in many, but not all, cases the parties do not impart such significance to the terms on the printed forms.”). Instead, Christy contends that the district court should have looked beyond the acknowledgment form’s language and focused on the parties’ intent as determined by the factual circumstances surrounding the agreement, to determine whether the acceptance was in fact expressly conditional on PCS’s assent. See Brief for Appellant at 12-13 (citing John E. Murray, Section 2-@07 of the Uniform Commercial Code: Another Word About Incipient Unconscionability, 39 U. Pitt. L.Rev. 597 (1978)). But see C. Itoh & Co. (America) v. Jordan Int’l Co., 552 F.2d 1228, 1235-36 (7th Cir.1977) (Itoh) (<HOLDING>). Christy argues that, based on the facts and
holding that performance may be valid acceptance holding that although sellers acknowledgment was not valid acceptance of buyers offer under  22071 buyers subsequent acceptance of and payment for goods along with buyers objection to a particular term within counteroffer constituted assent to remaining terms of counteroffer holding that a conditional acceptance can be manifested merely in a partys conduct holding that a valid contract requires acceptance of an offer holding that written confirmation was not valid acceptance under  22071 where it contained language matching  2207ls expressly conditional proviso