Under a written agreement Superpastries, Inc., promised to sell its entire output of baked buns at a specified unit price to Bonnie's Buns, Inc., a retailer, for one year. Bonnie's Buns promised not to sell any other supplier's baked buns. For this question only, assume the following facts. Shortly after making the contract, and before Superpastries had tendered any buns, Bonnie's Buns decided that the contract had become undesirable because of a sudden, sharp decline in its customers' demand for baked buns. It renounced the agreement, and Superpastries sues for breach of contract. Which of the following will the court probably decide? 
Bonnie's Buns wins, because mutuality of obligation was lacking in that Bonnie's Buns made no express promise to buy any of Superpastries' baked buns.  Bonnie's Buns wins, because the agreement was void for indefiniteness of quantity and total price for the year involved.  Superpastries wins, because Bonnie's Buns' promise to sell at retail Superpastries' baked buns exclusively, if it sold any such buns at all, implied a promise to use its best efforts to sell Superpastries' one-year output of baked buns.  Superpastries wins, because under the applicable law both parties to a sale-ofgoods contract impliedly assume the risk of price and demand fluctuations. 