Alonso was ABC's longtime supplier of wire, which ABC used in its sensors that they sold to Chrysler for inclusion in its cars. In $2003,$ Alonso began using a non$-$conforming insulation in its wires. ABC sent to Alonso a purchase order for wires. Alonso replied with an acknowledgment of receiving the order and included a limitation of damages clause that was not included in the original offer. The new clause limited any damages against Alonso to the cost of the wire and included the line "The acceptance of the order was EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED ON ABC's AGREEMENT TO THE NEW TERMS." ABC accepted the wires sent by Alonso and failed to reply in any way. The sensors that ABC sold to Chrysler $($which included Alonso's wires$)$ failed due to the non$-$conforming wiring. Chrysler had to recall thousands of cars in which the sensors were installed at their financial cost. ABC was forced to reimburse Chrysler for its losses caused by the recall. ABC now sues Alonso to recover the amount of money paid to Chrysler. Alonso claims the limitation of remedies clause included in the acknowlegment protected it from further liability beyond the cost of the wires and refuses to reimburse ABC. Is Alonso correct? Explain your decision