Rockland Industries agreed to purchase three containers of antimony oxide at $1.80 per pound from Manley-Regan Chemicals. Rockland produces drapes, and antimony oxide is used to fireproof the drapes. A representative from Manley-Regan, David Hess, worked with Conrad Ailstock, Rockland's purchasing agent. Hess informed Ailstock of a slight delay, but he assured Ailstock that the product, which was coming from China, was "on the water." Three months after the two companies had made the agreement, Hess contacted Ailstock to report that the product was not coming. According to Hess, Manley-Regan was considering legal claims against the Chinese supplier or the Chinese government. Rockland was forced to find another supplier, but the price was substantially higher. Rockland brought suit to recover the difference between Manley-Regan's quoted price and the price of the substitute antimony oxide. Is the commercial impracticability defense appropriate? [Rockland Industries, Inc. v. Manley-Regan Chemicals Division,991 F. Supp. 468 (1998).]

I need to figure out the court's decision and the rule of law it involves, stating:

A.the principle, standard, or rule which applies in this case.Explain the rule of law.

B.how the rule of law is supported or negated by the facts in the case.