On August 9, BuyCo and SellCo began communicating with these signed writings: August 9, BuyCo: We understand that you now own the original oil painting Nightbird, which is, of course, priceless. Nonetheless, we hereby offer to buy it, and we'd like to hear back from you on any other matters you deem significant, including price. Perhaps an appraiser's report would be helpful. We look forward to your response. August 11, SellCo: Thanks for your offer regarding our priceless painting, Nightbird. We accept, and we'll be in touch within ten days. Ten days later, on August 21, together with an appraiser's report that values it at $950,000, SellCo tendered delivery of the painting to BuyCo and demanded that BuyCo pay $950,000. BuyCo rejected the delivery and refused to pay anything, maintaining that "we never formed a final intention to buy." SellCo sues BuyCo for breach. Correctly deciding for Buyco, a court might make which of the following statements, whether or not it is a correct conception of law?
I.The contract at issue is void for indefiniteness.
II.The contract at issue is void for vagueness.
III.The parties formed no contract because they agreed that the painting was "priceless."
IV.The parties formed no contract because neither made an offer to the other.
V.The parties formed no contract because BuyCo did not fully intend to purchase the painting.
A.I
B.I and II
C.I, II, and III
D.I, II, and IV
E.I, II, IV, and V