The Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma gave Griffith a concession to run the district’s parks. The agreement gave the right to occupy the parks and use any improvements found therein. The district later wished to set this agreement aside because it was not making sufficient money from the transaction. While it was seeking to set the agreement aside, a boathouse and a gift shop in one of the parks were destroyed by fire. The district then claimed that the concession contract with Griffith was discharged by impossibility of performance. Was it correct? [Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma v Griffith, 723 P2d 1093 (Wash)]