defense largely pertains to the performance of a physical act.”), Publicker Indus. v. Union Carbide Corp., 17 UCC Rep. Serv. 989 (E.D.Pa.1975) (finding that a loss of $5.8 million did not render contract impracticable or excuse performance under the force majeure clause) (“Increased cost alone does not excuse performance unless the rise in cost is due to some unforeseen contingency which alters the essential nature of the performance.”). In fact, “the unforeseen cost increase that would excuse performance ‘must be more than merely onerous or expensive. It must be positively unjust to hold the parties bound.’ ” La. Power & Light Co. v. Allegheny Ludlum Indus., 517 F.Supp. 1319, 1325 (E.D.La.1981); see also Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Atlas Corp., 467 F.Supp. 129 (N.D.Iowa 1978) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 603 F.2d 1301 (8th
holding that the district court failed to comply with rule 32c1 because its oral finding regarding the value of loss resulting from monuss offense was stated in general terms and did not explain how it calculated the amount of loss or respond to the defendants specific factual objections to the methods of calculation included in the psr holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding that an unconsented increase in an indemnity obligation from 150000 to 5 million was a material modification sufficient to discharge indemnitors liability holding that an increase in sellers costs by 522 resulting in the sellers loss of approximately 267 million failed to con stitute commercial impracticability