Bitz, an amateur computer whiz, agreed in writing to design for the Presskey Corporation, writing to design for the Presskey Corporation, a distributor of TV game systems, three new games a year for a five-year period. The writing provided, in a clause separately signed by Bitz, that "No modification shall be binding on Presskey unless made in writing and signed by Presskey's authorized representative." Because of family problems, Bitz delivered and Presskey accepted only two game-designs a year for the first three years; but the games were a commercial success and Presskey made no objection. Accordingly, Bitz spent substantial sums on new computer equipment that would aid in speeding up future design work. In the first quarter of the fourth year, however, Presskey terminated the contract on the ground that Bitz had breached the annualquantity term. In Bitz's suit against Presskey for damages, the jury found that the contract had been modified by conduct and the trial court awarded Bitz substantial compensatory damages. Is this result likely to be reversed on appeal? 
Yes, because the contract's no-oralmodification clause was not expressly waived by Presskey.  Yes, because the contract's no-oralmodification clause was a material part of the agreed exchange and could not be avoided without new consideration.  No, because the contract's no-oralmodification clause was unconscionable as against an amateur designer.  No, because Presskey by its conduct waived the annual-quantity term and Bitz materially changed his position in reasonable reliance on that waiver. 