of one of the parties changes the basic assumptions of the contract such that it may be excused under the doctrine of impracticability. To hold otherwise would not fulfill the likely understanding of the parties as to the apportionment of risk under the contract.” (citation omitted)). Moreover, while the occurrence of a market slump cannot be Seaboard’s fault, no impossibility defense will lie where the “language or the circumstances” indicate allocation of the risk to the party seeking discharge. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. at 908, 116 S.Ct. 2432 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261). Because Seaboard entered into a fixed-price contract, it carried the risk that the market would slump. Tangfeldt Wood Prods., Inc. v. United States, 733 F.2d 1574, 1577-78 (Fed.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, because the non-occurrence of a
holding that a plaintiff claiming monopolization is obligated to establish the relevant market because the power to control prices or exclude competition only makes sense with reference to a particular market holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee holding that values obtained using a former version of schedule u5 were deficient because the assessor failed to consider market information about the prices of new and used equipment in the taxpayers industry holding that high prices with no showing of restricted output failed to establish monopoly power holding that timber contractor bore the general risk of changing market prices and could not be deemed compelled to defer removal simply by the fact of low prices