the risk of loss to the boat owners and exculpated the marina from liability for damage resulting from the fire. When language is this explicit, “it is beyond the province of this Court to imply limitations or conditions on the exercise of a power to allocate risks so unmistakably expressed.” Morton v. Zidell Explorations, Inc., 695 F.2d 347, 351 (9th Cir.1982) (construing clause providing that “all risk of loss of or damage to the Vessel shall be upon First Party” and “Second Party shall not, under any circumstances whatsoever, be chargeable with or liable for damages .... ”), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1039, 103 S.Ct. 1431, 75 L.Ed.2d 791 (1983). Even those circuits that are hostile to exculpatory clauses have found similar language equally unambiguous. See La Esperanza, 124 F.3d at 20 (<HOLDING>). But see Randall, 13 F.3d at 906 (holding that
holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law holding that the term shall is mandatory for purposes of statutory construction when the statute is unambiguous holding that a party who lends money to be used in the repairs of a vessel or to furnish the vessel with supplies does not have a privilege against the vessel holding a contract clause stating that the yard shall in no case be held responsible for the damages resulting from any loss of use or profit of the vessel to be unambiguous