Patricia Elsken leased an apartment in a large apartment complex. She contracted in writing to have Network Multi-Family Security Corp. provide security services. The contract contained a clause limiting Network's liability to exist250 for any injury or damage caused by a failure of the alarm service or Network's negligent performance. The contract stated, in capital letters, that Network was not an insurer and that the resident had responsibility for obtaining insurance to cover any losses. One morning, Network received an alarm signal indicating intrusion into Elsken's apartment. Network called Elsken's apartment and, receiving no answer, called the apartment manager instead of going to the apartment. The manager told Network to disregard the alarm. Later that day, Elsken was found dead in her apartment, the victim of an apparent homicide. The administrator of her estate filed a lawsuit in an Oklahoma state court for damages against Network, claiming that Network could not limit its liability for its own negligence. Network responded that its liability was limited to the exist250 provided by the contract. Was Network's limitation-of-liability clause valid or not? Why or why not? a. Yes. The limitation-of-liability clause was valid, because all such clauses are enforceable as long as the damages provision is reasonable. b. Yes. The irritation-of-ability clause was valid, because clauses limiting liability for negligence are generally enforceable. c. No. The limitation-of-liability clause was not valid, because a party cannot limit its liability for wrongful acts. d. Yes. The limitation-of-liability clause was not valid, because the damages provision was unreasonably small