Gyro, an expert in lifting and emplacing equipment atop tall buildings, contracted in a signed writing to lift and emplace certain air-conditioning equipment atop Tower's building. An exculpatory clause in the contract provided that Gyro would not be liable for any physical damage to Tower's building occurring during installation of the air-conditioning equipment. There was also a clause providing for per diem damages if Gyro did not complete performance by a specified date and a clause providing that "time is of the essence." Another clause provided that any subsequent agreement for extra work under the contract must be in writing and signed by both parties. With ample time remaining under the contract for commencement and completion of his performance, Gyro notified Tower that he was selling his business to Copter, who was equally expert in lifting and emplacing equipment atop tall buildings, and that Copter had agreed to "take over the Gyro-Tower contract." For this question only, assume that Tower orally agreed with Gyro to accept Copter's services and that Copter performed on time but negligently installed the wrong airconditioning equipment. Will Tower succeed in an action against Gyro for damages for breach of contract? 
Yes, because Tower did not agree to release Gyro from liability under the Gyro-Tower contract.  Yes, because Tower received no consideration for the substitution of Copter for Gyro.  No, because by accepting the substitution of Copter for Gyro, Tower effected a novation, and Gyro was thereby discharged of his duties under the Gyro- Tower contract.  No, because the liquidated-damage clause in the Gyro-Tower contract provided only for damages caused by delay in performance. 