so that a person might understand the continuity of what is there. While there is a reference on the front of the invoice that there are terms and conditions on the reverse side, there is no reference in the correspondence which the trial court found constituted the contract to any additional express terms. In addition, the trial court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish any agreement with respect to the additional terms by virtue of this or previous transactions. The record reveals, inter alia, that the invoice was sent at the end of the transaction, not the beginning; and neither of the plaintiffs principals was actually aware of any additional provisions from this or previous transactions. See Surplus Electronics Corp. v. Gallin, 653 P.2d 752 (Colo.App.1982) (<HOLDING>). Defendant relies upon Independent Machinery,
holding that an order imposing sanctions against an attorney for one of the parties in a pending case is final and therefore immediately appealable by the attorney 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 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 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 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