Belden was AEC’s longtime supplier of wire, which it used in its sensors, including the sensors that it sold to Chrysler for inclusion in its cars. In 2003, Belden began using nonconforming insulation in its wire. Belden’s order acknowledgment, sent in response to AEC’s purchase order, contained a limitation of remedy that was not in the offer. It also stated that its acceptance was expressly conditioned on AEC’s agreement to its terms. The sensors that AEC sold to Chrysler failed, due to the nonconforming wiring, and Chrysler had to recall cars in which it had been installed. AEC had to reimburse Chrysler for its losses caused by the recall. AEC sued Belden to recover the amount of money AEC paid to reimburse Chrysler, and Belden claimed that the limitation of remedies in its acknowledgment protected it from liability for these damages. Is Belden correct?