Tandrin Aviation Holdings Ltd. agreed to sell a jet aircraft to Aero Toy Store, LLC, for \($31.75\) million. ATS paid a \($3\) million deposit to a third party with the balance due upon delivery. Tandrin subsequently purchased the aircraft from a third party for \($26.5\) million. ATS refused to accept delivery of the aircraft, pay the balance of the purchase price, or allow Tandrin to claim the deposit. Tandrin sued ATS for breach of contract. ATS claimed that its contractual obligations were excused by a force majeure clause contained within the parties’ contract. ATS claimed the onset of the recession in 2008 allowed it to postpone its purchase and renegotiate the price. The clause did not list recessions, economic downturns, or market conditions as excuses for ATS’ non-performance and only provided for events beyond Tandrin’s control.

Should the court excuse or suspend ATS’ performance based upon the force majeure clause? Why or why not?