. The district court noted that, although the parties agreed that UCC § 2-207 governed, neither side had addressed whether Nebraska or Missouri law should apply. See slip op. at 3. The district court reasoned that "[t]he exercise likely would be academic, however, as the Nebraska and Missouri versions of UCC § 2-207 are essentially the same.” Id. (citing N & D Fashions, Inc. v. DHJ Indus., Inc., 548 F.2d 722 (8th Cir.1976), for proposition that it is unnecessary to resolve a choice-of-law issue where the states involved adopted UCC § 2-207 without modification). 3 . Notably, if a contract had in fact been formed between Christy and PCS under § 2-207(1), we would have applied § 2-207(2) to determine the contract’s terms, as the district court did in the alternative. See slip op. at 5-7 (<HOLDING>); see also C. Itoh & Co. (America) v. Jordan
holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement holding that even if the parties had formed a contract under  2207l the arbitration clause materially altered the contract and therefore did not become part of the parties agreement holding that nolostprofits clause in parties agreement was not unconscionable as a matter of law in part because similar clause had been in the agreement between the parties for years holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties