(a Thai state-owned oil and gas company) regarding a software implementation contract.
The parties involved are:
1. Triple Point Technology, Inc.: A software company that was contracted to develop and implement a software system for PTT Public Company.
2. PTT Public Company Limited: A Thai state-owned oil and gas company that contracted Triple Point to develop and implement the software system.
The subject matter of the contract was agreed to be the development and implementation of a software system by Triple Point for PTT Public Company according to the agreed-upon specifications. 
This was to include tasks such as software programming, customisation, integration, testing, and support. PTT's obligation was to provide necessary cooperation, access to information, and any other requirements specified in the contract to facilitate the successful completion of the project.
The key legal question in the Triple Point Technology, Inc. v. PTT Public Company Limited case was the interpretation and application of the contract's liquidated damages clause.
Triple Point filed the action against PTT Public Company. Triple Point claimed that PTT owed it additional fees for work performed and sought to recover those fees. 
On the other hand, PTT counterclaimed, arguing that Triple Point was liable for liquidated damages due to project delays and failure to meet contractual milestones.

The issue at hand:
Article 12.3 of the contract comprised four sentences. 
The first instance court as well as the  Court of Appeal dissected the clause into four parts and interpreted them as separate but related limbs forming this clause.
The four sentences, in essence, provided that:
Triple Point is liable to pay for the damage suffered by PTT arising from its breach of contract. Express reference to software defects and contractual functionality requirements are made here in the text of the clause.
Triple Point’s total liability to PTT under the contract is capped at the contract price received by Triple Point under the contract (i.e. a global cap).
Except for specific remedies expressly identified elsewhere in the contract, PTT’s only remedy for claims under the contract is for Triple Point to use best endeavours to cure the breach, or failing that, for Triple Point to return the fees it received for the services or deliverables related to the breach (i.e. a limitation on the form of remedy).
Liability resulting from fraud, negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct are carved out from the limitation on liability (i.e. the cap carve-out).
Comprehension Questions
1. How did the first instance court and the Court of Appeal analyze Article 12.3 of the contract?
2. What does the first sentence of Article 12.3 state regarding Triple Point's liability?
3. What is the total liability limit imposed on Triple Point under the contract?
4. What is PTT's main remedy for claims under the contract, apart from specific remedies mentioned elsewhere?
5. Which types of liability are excluded from the limitation on liability stated in the clause?