Question: Faulconer served as an employee of Wysong & Miles Company for approximately 30 years. In October 1981, Faulconer and Wysong & Miles entered into an agreement that provided for Faulconer to receive supplemental retirement and death benefits from Wysong & Miles in recognition of his years of faithful service, loyalty to the company (including a noncompete provision), and required physical check-ups. Faulconer retired from Wysong & Miles in 1987. Wysong & Miles was obligated to him in the sum of $2,620.80 per month under the agreement. It made all payments until the fall of 2000. At that point, Wysong & Miles suspended its payments to Faulconer. Faulconer filed suit against Wysong & Miles, claiming that it had missed eight payments, and owed him the principal sum of $20,966.40 plus interest. Wysong & Miles admitted that it had failed to make the payments, but it claimed that its duty to perform was discharged by impracticability. It stated that the precipitous decline in the metalworking machine manufacturing industry, for which Wysong was not in any way responsible, and the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the agreement was made, made its performance impracticable. Will Wysong & Miles prevail on this argument?