The province intended to have a highway built in an otherwise undeveloped area. Its first step was to hire ND Lea & Associates, a firm of architects, to draft a basic plan for the project. The province then incorporated those plans into the tender documents that it used when it called for bids on the construction project. The tender documents also contained an exemption clause that stated, "The Province shall not be subject to any liability for any damage which the Contractor may sustain by reason of any delay or delays, from whatever cause, arising in the progress of the work." The province received a number of tenders and eventually hired Edgeworth Construction Ltd (ECL) to build the highway. ECL very soon realized that the plans provided by the province (and created by the architects) were inaccurate and ineffective. It ultimately suffered a loss of $2 000 000 on the project as a result. ECL believes that it should not have to bear that loss, but it also knows that the province is protected by the exemption clause. ECL therefore has sued the architectural firm under the tort of negligence. The architects admit that they acted carelessly and that their carelessness caused ECL's loss. ND Lea & Associates insist, however, that it is entitled to be protected by the exemption clause by virtue of the London Drugs case. Will that argument succeed in court? Explain your answer.