The defendant owns and operates DiNardo's Mansion, a luxurious building that is available for conferences, parties, and other events. The plaintiffs, Ellen and Richard, wanted to hold their wedding at the mansion. The defendant's sales manager told the young couple that, by the time of their wedding in November, the facility would have a new, heated glass canopy over an outdoor courtyard, as well as a new two-tier fountain and waterfall that would be ideal for photographs. The couple was impressed with the plans and emphasized the need for outdoor facilities that would be suitable even near the end of autumn. They also indicated that the new improvements to DiNardo's Mansion were very important to them. The parties then agreed on a total price of $14 000 for 280 guests (at a cost of $50 per person). The situation then went downhill. Instead of a glass canopy, the defendant installed a canvas covering over its courtyard. Likewise, the planned waterfall was never built and the fountain was simpler than expected. Worst of all, after the defendant's manager left the organization, the defendant realized that the agreed-upon price was far too low. The defendant contacted the plaintiffs, explained that the price should have been doubled, and insisted that the "contract is impossible to execute." However, after the plaintiffs told the defendant that they were discharging the contract on the basis of his breach, he changed his mind and said that he would honour the agreement. Unwilling to deal with DiNardo's Mansion any longer, the plaintiffs took their wedding elsewhere. Because the alternative venue was arranged at the last minute, it cost $18 000 and it could accommodate only 200 guests. The plaintiffs have sued for breach of contract, but the defendant argues that he is not to blame because he was willing to perform. Are the plaintiffs likely to win their case? Explain your answer.