The grounds of appeal are based on the assertion that the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the principles concerning contractual liability and privity of contract. The appellant argues that the decision failed to recognize the existence of a contractual or legal obligation extending liability to MMCOG, despite the absence of direct contractual relations. It is contended that the evidence demonstrating the involvement of MMCOG in the overall project or consortium should have been sufficient to establish some form of legal responsibility or obligation. Furthermore, the appellant asserts that the court's reliance solely on the formal contractual documents overlooked the broader context of the parties' conduct and the internal communications which could imply an obligation or responsibility on MMCOG's part. The appeal also challenges the court's conclusion that liability is confined strictly to the contractual parties, arguing that this interpretation neglects the possibility of implied or indirect obligations that may arise from the conduct of the parties or the nature of the contractual arrangement. The appellant seeks to have the decision reconsidered on the grounds that the evidence and circumstances suggest a broader scope of liability beyond the formal contractual privity.