We may summarize the logic of Judge Easterbrook's legal conclusion here as follows:  If language appears in some subparts of a unified code but does not appear in other subparts of the same code, the drafters of the code meant for the language to apply only to those sections of the code in which it is used but not to other parts of the code in which it is not used.  Is this logic consistent with the following conclusion expressed earlier in the opinion: 

One of the [lower] court's reasons [for finding no contract] --that by proposing as part of the draft Article 2B a new UCC § 2-2203 [sic] that would explicitly validate standard-form user licenses, the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws have conceded the invalidity of shrinkwrap licenses under current law, see 908 F. Supp. at 655-66--depends on a faulty inference.  To propose a change in a law's text is not necessarily to propose a change in the law's effect. New words may be designed to fortify the current rule with a more precise text that curtails uncertainty.