1. Whether a federal court sitting in diversity may deny
a party the right to present the equitable defense of
impossibility to the jury—despite uncontroverted
evidence and the absence of any express waiver—
solely because the contract contains a one-sided force
majeure clause that is silent on equitable defenses, in
direct conflict with the decisions of the Fourth and
Seventh Circuits and in violation of the Fifth and
Seventh Amendments.

2. Whether a federal court may disregard mandatory
state jury instructions, particularly those related
to the legally required measure of damages under
substantive state law (Texas), in diversity cases
without violating the litigant's rights to due process
and a fair trial under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments and the Erie doctrine.

3. Whether federal courts may categorically preclude
invocation of impossibility and frustration-of-purpose
defenses based on boilerplate force majeure clauses—
regardless of waiver or contract structure—thereby
eliminating equitable defenses long recognized by law
and equity and creating a sharp division among the
circuits on the treatment of pandemic-related contract
disputes.

Whether a federal court sitting in diversity may deny a party the right to present the equitable defense of impossibility to the jury despite uncontroverted evidence and the absence of any express waiver solely because the contract contains a one-sided force majeure clause that is silent on equitable defenses