With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". services as promised by Powell. As an initial matter, contrary to Powell’s narrow construction of the contract, the subject of the contract is Powell’s “Electrical Contractor work for [HP] related to the Willow Substation 34.5KV Breaker Retrofit,” which the evidence shows necessarily included temporarily unhooking the breaker cables from transformer B’s breaker cabinet and then putting them back. This does not appear to have been disputed at trial, and Powell’s own employee averred that “[t]he scope of the Powell/HP contract included the unlanding and relanding of the feeder cables to the circuit breakers.” The contract expressly contemplates that testing and repair costs may be incurred as a result of defective performance by Powell. See McKinney & Moore, Inc., 2009 WL 4577348, at *5 (<HOLDING>); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 2008 WL 3876141,

A: holding that expenses incurred under construction contract were direct damages because they were contemplated in contract provision that required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for damage occurring during work on project and that were caused by negligence or fault of defendant or its agents
B: holding that the defendant cannot create contract rights that could have been contemplated but were omitted from the agreement
C: holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work
D: holding that medical expenses and wages paid pursuant to employment contract were collateral sources and that defendant could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits
A.