Which of the following is NOT an example of an exculpatory clause?

An exculpatory clause is a provision in a contract that seeks to limit or eliminate liability for one party in the event of certain outcomes, typically involving negligence. It essentially protects one party from legal responsibility for a claim made by the other party.

In this context, the correct answer indicates a statement that does not serve to limit liability. The clause stating that “the owner must not interfere with the contractor's schedule” focuses on the responsibilities of the owner without absolving either party of liability. This stipulation pertains more to expected conduct and obligations rather than providing immunity from claims, which is characteristic of exculpatory clauses.

In contrast, the other choices are examples of exculpatory clauses. They involve indemnification or holding harmless provisions allowing one party (the contractor or owner) to avoid liability for certain actions or omissions. For instance, indemnifying the contractor means that if legal claims arise from a specific situation, the owner assumes the responsibility. Similarly, if the contractor holds the owner harmless, the contractor promises to protect the owner from certain types of claims. Lastly, the contractor's duty to come to the defense of the owner reflects a commitment to protect the owner from liability in various situations.

By identifying the correct answer, one can