A signs a contract for snow skiing lessons and the contract read that it is “non cancel able” and that “no refunds will be made under the terms of the contract.” The ski lodge informs A that A has a “great potential to become a world-class skier,” and consequently, A signs further contracts with the ski lodge for ski lessons. As time progresses, A spends $7,500 on ski lessons and has signed contracts, containing the language mentioned above, and paid $12,000 for future ski lessons. A is hit by a fast-moving snowmobile and is injured to the extent that skiing is no longer possible. A seeks return on the $12,000 paid for ski lessons that A will not be able to take. The ski lodge says that this is a risk that A assumed in signing the contracts and paying in advance and furthermore will not give a refund because of the terms of the contract. A sues the ski lodge. Who wins? Does the doctrine of impossibility apply? Should the court imply a condition of “good health” into the contract for the ski lessons?