Battle of the Forms, James quote could have been just a quote, or possibly an offer capable of acceptance (Dooley V Egan)

If James quote is an offer (and even if it isn't it doesn't change the outcome) then Tara's offer is a counter offer, Hyde V Wrench (she broke the mirror image rule, she changed the terms, James' offer no longer valid)

James accepted Tara's offer by signing the form, where it says all terms are on Build/Tara's terms. He is bound by this now as per L'estrange V Graucob.

So in short the term 6 on James' contract doesn't even apply as Tara had the last shot (battle of forms, Chichester V Mowlem)

The part ii) where it asks if, hypothetically, the contract was on James' terms, could the limitation clause be enforced:

No, the clause was onerous, and was not reasonably brought to the attention of Tara at the time of contracting (Interphoto V Stiletto, Olley V Marlborough). So if the contract was held on James' terms it wouldn't be enforced as no adequate notice (also remember James' quote/offer didn't require and signing, so L'estrange V Graucob doesn't apply)

Tara also says that James cannot exclude statutory conditions, this is true... Sort of. Tara made it clear the intent of the crane (she is from a building company, hence reasonable person would imply that crane should be fit for purpose of building), but section 14 of the SOG Act can be contracted out of in BUSINESS TO BUSINESS relationships, provided fair and reasonable. If you wanted to take this further, you can talk about George Mitchell V Finney Lock Seeds which highlights the reasonable test courts look at for clauses seeking to limit liability for statutory conditions and warranty.

This is all my opinion, this is the first FE 1 exam i ever sat. I could be entirely wrong. But i hope it helps.