LEXIS 18171, at 9 (NJD.Cal.) (“[T]he impractica 1979). Similarly, courts interpreting force maj-eure provisions have held that nonperformance dictated by economic hardship is not enough to fall within a force majeure provision. See, e.g., Stand Energy, 760 N.E.2d at 458 (finding that unseasonably hot temperatures resulting in record demand for power and unprecedented high hourly prices for electric power did not excuse, under the force majeure clause, defendant’s inability to deliver the power required under the contract). “[M]ere increase in expense does not excuse performance [under a force majeure provision] unless there exists extreme and unreasonable difficulty, expense, [or] injury.” Butler v. Nepple, 54 Cal.2d 589, 6 Cal.Rptr. 767, 354 P.2d 239, 244-45 (1960) (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>). Defendants, in their Opposition, focus on how
holding that compliance with oneperson onevote requirement under fourteenth amendment of federal constitution does not excuse compliance with fifteenth amendment of federal constitution holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that anticipated costs of compliance with an injunctive order are not changed circumstances under rufo holding that the fact that compliance with the contract would involve greater expense than anticipated due to a steel strike did not excuse performance recognizing that the government generally has the right to insist on performance in strict compliance with the contract specifications