Stadler Inc. runs a series of small pipelines in and around the Lower Mainland area. The pipelines are used to ship diluted bitumen (oil) from the interior of British Columbia to the coastal waters of the Burrard Inlet in downtown Vancouver. Stadler has recently secured its largest (and most profitable) contract to ship oil with a company called Disliter Global Oil Ltd. Disliter is going to pay Stadler over $200 million dollars to ship oil through its pipelines starting on July 8. Stadler is extremely excited about the deal and the company immediately begins preparations of its pipelines to ensure it can handle all that oil. On July 12, across the globe, the United Nations Climate Change Conference formally ends. While there is some modest progress being made by world countries to address climate change, it is not enough to satisfy one particular group called "Climate Action Now" (CAN). CAN is a hardline group of protestors who are willing to take dramatic steps to prevent environmental damage. On July 14, four members of CAN flew to Vancouver, placed small home- made explosives on the Stadler pipelines, and exploded them. CAN viewed this as a massive win which would prevent the transport of heavy polluting oil. As a result of the explosions, the Stadler pipelines were rendered inoperable for at least 6 months. The CEO of Stadler, Tommy Davison, called up Disliter to let them know about the July 14 events. Disliter was not sympathetic and demanded compensation from Stadler for breaking their agreement. When Davison refused, Disliter informed him that they will be moving to sue for breach of contract. If Stadler were sued for breach of contract, how could the company argue that the contract was otherwise discharged because of the July 14 events? Would that discharge argument by Stadler be successful and help the company avoid a breach claim? Fully explain and apply the legal test for the relevant concept. (6 marks)