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

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 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.