How have the courts interpreted a disclaimer in a purchase order form?

The purchase orders, by their own terms, are only offers. Each form states "THIS IN [sic] ONLY AN OFFER AND NOT A CONTRACT UNLESS ACCEPTED IN WRITING BY THE SELLER". The plain import of this language, in this action where defendant was a seller, was that defendant would not be bound unless it signed the form. The majority attempts to avoid the import of this plain language, urging that it should be disregarded because this printed statement is on a form plaintiff usually used when acting as a seller and thus is meaningless in this alleged transaction where plaintiff was acting as a buyer (majority opn., at 123-124, at 508 of 538 N.Y.S.2d, at 638 of 535 N.E.2d). Significantly, plaintiff, who prepared the documents, never indicated on any of the forms that this disclaimer should be disregarded and, fully aware of the existence of the disclaimer, signed each form on the line provided beneath it. Moreover, the fact that plaintiff usually used these forms in its capacity as a seller is not properly considered in evaluating the sufficiency of the documents on their face (Scheck v. Francis, 26 N.Y.2d 466, 472, 311 N.Y.S.2d 493, 260 N.E.2d 493).