breach. As the trial court recognized, the parties stipulated to a particular remedy in the event of a breach. The court, however, relied upon Nebraska Wheat Growers Ass’n v. Norquest, 113 Neb. 731, 204 N.W. 798 (1925), to conclude that this provision did not prevent the Reicherts from seeking injunctive relief. In that case, this court held that a liquidated damages clause was an inadequate remedy at law and did not preclude injunctive relief. However, the damages clause in Nebraska Wheat Growers Ass’n did not specify that it was the sole and exclusive remedy under the lease. A contract will not be construed to limit the remedial rights of the parties unless that intention is clearly expressed. See, Roberts Constr. Co. v. State, 172 Neb. 819, 824, 825, 111 N.W.2d 767, 770, 771 (1961) (<HOLDING>); 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 748 (1991). In
holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur holding that extension of time provision was not sole remedy for highway improvement contractor against state when contract in the absence of a nodamage clause or other provision to the contrary in the contract emphasis supplied holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable holding that the court was bound to consider a contract provision that was plainly relevant to the central issue of contract interpretation raised on appeal despite the parties failure to cite or discuss the provision holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them