A party to a construction contract can attempt to limit its liability by requiring that the other party must agree to

		indemnify it against claims of third parties
		waive damages to which the other party may be entitled
		limit to a certain sum the damages to which the other party may be entitled
		limit the damages that the other party will be able to recover to a certain type of damages
		A and B
		A and D
		A,B and D
		All of the above

What is the difference in the manner of conduct as between the owners in the two cases of Zachry v. Port Authority of Houston, and El Paso vs. Mastec that would explain the reason why the Supreme Court of Texas would not enforce the no damages for delay clause in Zachry, but enforce the differing site conditions clause in Mastec?

		In El Paso v. Mastec, the contractor stated it had investigated all conditions
		In El Paso v. Mastec, the contractor waived rights to claim more money for unknown site conditions
		In El Paso v. Mastec, the owner did not intentionally interfere with the contractor
		All of the above
		None of the above

If a Contractor performs work for which there is no written contract (e.g. work that goes far beyond the contemplation of both owner and contractor, perhaps even amounting to a cardinal change), the proper measure of damages is the fair value of the contractors services. In this case, the law may permit the existence of a contract to be implied, and the contractor may be entitled to recover ;

Under a theory of quantum merit

Lost profits

Punitive damages

Under a theory of negligence