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).