Lindenwood Grains enters into an agreement to ship a load of grain from its grain silos in Iowa to a purchaser in Mumbai, India by way of the Suez Canal. The shipping price for the grain was $60,000. Because of military conflicts in the area, the Suez Canal was closed while the grain shipment was en route. Lindenwood was unable to deliver the grain to its purchaser in Mumbai without incurring substantial additional transport costs by shipping the grain around the coast of Africa. The purchaser of the grain seeks enforcement of the contract per the original terms, and refuses to pay more than $60,000 for the shipping costs. Lindenwood seeks payment of the actual $120,000 shipping costs, claiming commercial impracticality and/or commercial frustration. Who wins?