U.P.B. Nuts Co. is a Michigan limited liability company that needs 100 high-end mixers to make a huge order of its best

[answerhappygod]

U.P.B. Nuts Co. is a Michigan limited liability company
that needs 100 high-end mixers to make a huge order of its best
selling product, jordan almonds, for a major event. U.P.B.
Nuts entered into a contract to purchase such blenders for $1000
each from Loyer Dup, Inc., a Michigan kitchen equipment
wholesaler. The purchase agreement that Loyer Dup sent to
U.P.B. Nuts was 130 pages long and written in size 4 font, single
spaced. U.P.B. Nuts' manager, Chaz Holms, didn't have time to
read through the whole contract and just signed it and sent it back
to Loyer Dup. Chaz Holms did not realize that on page 65 of
the purchase agreement was a provision that stated, "Mixers
purchased pursuant to this agreement shall be delivered from Seller
to Purchaser at a rate of one blender per month until the order is
completely filled." On page 32 of the purchase agreement was
a provision that stated, "Purchaser must pay the entire amount of
this purchase agreement in full within 10 days of signing this
purchase agreement." 30 days later, Loyer Dup filed a lawsuit
in the 25th Michigan Circuit Court (Marquette County) seeking a
money judgment against U.P.B. Nuts for its failure to pay Loyer Dup
the entire amount of the purchase agreement within 10 days of
signing the purchase agreement. U.P.B. Nuts argued that it
had not been aware of the "delivery rate" provision in the contract
when it was signed; that U.P.B. Nuts had only received one of the
100 blenders described in the purchase agreement; that U.P.B. Nuts
wouldn't even receive all of the blenders it ordered for another
8-plus years given the delivery rate; and that given the foregoing
it was unreasonable for U.P.B. Nuts to have to pay the full
contract price already. Evaluate the following
statement: Following the precedent set by Rory v Continental
Insurance Company, the court will likely issue a judgment against
U.P.B. Nuts for the full contract price. in Rory v
Continental Insurance Company. (In that case, the Michigan
Supreme Court ruled that unambiguous contract provisions are not
open to judicial determinations of "reasonableness" and must be
enforced as written.)
True
False