Emond is an experienced fisherman. A local restaurant hired Emond to procure 500 kilograms of herring, which it would freeze and serve to customers over the coming months. The restaurant's herring dishes are popular amongst its customers, and it was imperative that Emond return with a good catch so that the restaurant could meet its demand. Emond set out to sea, only to learn that the area where he normally goes for fish contained very few herring. It was a poor fishing year, and other fishers had already taken the bulk of the herring. There were other areas where Emond could fish for herring, but they were much farther away and Emond did not care to venture so far off course just to get fish for the restaurant. Emond returned empty-handed and the restaurant sued for loss of profits. Emond claimed in his defence that the lack of fish meant that the contract was frustrated and therefore Emond was relieved of his obligations. Will Emond succeed in this argument? Why or why not?