With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not pay any prepayment penalty, nor did it attempt to change the terms of Nguyen's offer in any way. Cf. Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Aircraft Network, L.L.C., 213 S.W.3d 455, 465-466 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pets, denied) ("An acceptance must be identical to the offer, or there is no binding contract.”); Harris v. Balderas, 27 S.W.3d 71, 77 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) ("If the purported acceptance contains terms that materially change the offer, the acceptance is actually a rejection and counter-offer."). Additionally, by failing to pay the assumption fees, Warner Alan indicated its acceptance of Nguyen's offer on the terms outlined in his letter, which include the payment of any prepayment penalty. See United Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Spin-Line Co., 430 S.W.2d 360, 364 (Tex.1968) (<HOLDING>). 4 . See also Rus-Ann Dev., Inc. v. ECGC,

A: holding purchaser of software product was bound by terms of shrinkwrap agreement upon opening the packaging of the product reasoning that a vendor as master of the offer may invite acceptance by conduct and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance a buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance
B: holding that complete performance of contract constituted acceptance
C: holding that performance may be valid acceptance
D: holding that such provisions are valid
C.