2020 the year of the rise of the Force Majeure Clause!
Mauro Ribeiro
Contract and Commercial Legal Manager Huawei | Legal tech | Renewable energy | CCMP | WCC Accredited and Council member | MBA I SaaS
2020 the year of the rise of the Force Majeure Clause
The pandemic in which we are living, which has spread disorderedly on a global scale, has raised legal issues that must be analyzed and debated through multiple lenses. The disruptions caused by the pandemic have amplified the discussion of force majeure relevance in the context of the debate on civil liability and its exclusions. Since the detection of COVID-19, countries all around the world have taken countless measures to prevent the spread of the virus: quarantine periods for all those who have been in contact with infected persons or who have been in an area deeply affected by the virus resulted in a significant reduction in the available workforce; extended lockdown periods caused widespread paralyzation across almost all industries, brutally impacting contractual relations. While at the beginning of the outbreak the impact was limited only to trade relations with certain parts of the world, today the crisis affects the stability of the global economy and the timely fulfillment of contracts across all sectors. In the light of the above, legal issues related to non-compliance with contracts during a period of crisis caused by epidemics or pandemics have undergone newfound scrutiny.
I. Contract Clauses and the Meaning of Force Majeure Event
A force majeure event is defined, in broad terms, as an unexpected event out of one’s control, which prevents the normal performance of contractual obligations. The Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice has said that the case of force majeure always has an underlying idea of inevitability: it will be an all-natural event or human actions that are predictable or even preventable. Force majeure is therefore a concept that is open to interpretation and can only be defined in the light of concrete circumstances.
Nevertheless, most contracts set limits on the concepts of force majeure or unforeseen circumstances (“fortuitous”) in order to give a concrete expression to the scenarios in which the defaulting party is released from its obligations or its timeline for compliance. For example, the definition of force majeure is often limited to acts of war, fire, lightning, earthquakes, cyclones, volcanic eruptions, explosions, and epidemics.
The COVID-19 pandemic has recently led many of these models to be revised or reformulated, as with the new guidance issued by the International Chamber of Commerce: Model made available by International Chamber of Commerce.
II. COVID-19 as a Trigger of Force Majeure
The question of whether contractual obligations can be modified as a result of COVID-19 has been the subject of discussion by several legal professionals, and most of them agree that in theory the answer is yes. However, determining whether an event qualifies as a trigger of force majeure requires the use of indeterminate concepts that can only be evaluated in the face of concrete circumstances. That is, before the contract is in question and before the assessment of whether the impossibility of performance is a consequence of the cause of force majeure, there must exists an extraordinary situation that inhibits the fulfillment of an obligation. Therefore, in abstract terms, as an epidemic and pandemic, COVID-19 can be considered a cause of force majeure.
III. Pandemic and the Relation between Hardship and Force Majeure
Hardship is a legal concept that excuses performance when the underlying circumstances of the contract change in a way the parties did not foresee at the time of executing the contract, and, although in principle the contractual obligations are still fulfillable, fulfilling the contract does not make sense from an economic viewpoint.
It’s important to understand that force majeure and hardship are two different principles, even if they sometimes are treated as the same. They are different in their preconditions and in their legal consequences. To apply force majeure, the legal obligations of a party must become universally impossible to fulfill due to an unexpected event, unable to be controlled, which occurs without any foresight. That is, as the English translation clarify, force majeure is an “act of god.”
Hardship, on the other hand, comes into play when the underlying circumstances of a contract unforeseeably change in such a way that the economic implications of fulfilling the contract obligations become excessively burdensome on one of the parties.
The legal consequences of both doctrines are very different. The consequence of force majeure is that because one party cannot fulfill its contractual obligations due to impossibility, that party is relieved from such obligations during the time of the force majeure event. In the case of hardship, the party for which the underlying circumstances changed can basically still fulfil its contractual obligations and perform the contract, but the performance has become economically worthless. Depending on the contractual agreement between the parties and the laws of the jurisdiction, the contract will either be adjusted to the circumstances automatically or the parties will have to renegotiate the contractual details that were affected by the changed circumstances (namely, the purchase price and delivery date).
In Portugal, this concept is Altera??o de Circunstancias, or material change in economic circumstances, and is a function of civil law provided for in Article 437 of the Portuguese Civil Code and applies across all contracts, not just commercial.
Imagine the situation of someone who had to cancel a wedding during an epidemic because there was a disease outbreak at the venue. As it happens, he had already hired the catering service at the time of the outbreak. In theory, nothing would prevent serving the catering or paying the price of the catering, but the basis for this contract has disappeared: there is no longer a wedding or guests to whom to serve the catering. In such a situation, the regime of hardship or Altera??o de Circunstancias, subject to other legal assumptions, could work to allow the contract to be terminated or the price adjusted.
Another example is if the seller of a specific object loses the object in the ocean. In principle, he must try to recover it from the bottom of the ocean, which may be theoretically possible but obviously does not make economic sense.
Neither of these examples of excusing contract performance on the grounds of hardship could excuse performance under the principle of force majeure.
IV. Force Majeure Events in Different Jurisdictions
The doctrine of force majeure is one of the most basic principles of law and is generally accepted across jurisdictions. However, the extent to which this doctrine is read into contracts as a function of law varies by jurisdiction. For this reason and to effectively excuse performance and limit liability, the best practice is always to include clear language defining the contours of force majeure and specifying the consequences of noncompliance.
Some considerations regarding international contracts governed by the English law or by the laws of Hong Kong:
- Consider in detail the precise wording of the force majeure clause, the contract as a whole, and the circumstances that have arisen. Determining whether performance is excused by a force majeure clause can be a difficult and a highly fact-sensitive exercise.
- Serve any notices required under the contract as soon as possible and in accordance with the notice provisions. Consider carefully what events or circumstances you allege constitute the force majeure event, taking into account the wording of the clause and the timescales required for service of notice (e.g. the date of the outbreak of COVID-19 itself or government restrictions subsequently put in place).
- Keep a documentary record of why performance was impossible, hindered, or delayed, as the case may be; the steps taken to find alternatives and mitigate loss; and the service of any notices.
- The contract between the parties should expressly provide for the suspension or termination of service on the ground of force majeure.
- In the context of COVID-19, to what extent the viral outbreak prevented, hampered or delayed the performance of the contract;
The contracts governed by German and French law have similar considerations. German law does not expressly regulate the consequences of a force majeure event and therefore contracts generally include force majeure clauses. For contracts governed by French law without a force majeure clause force majeure is governed by the French Civil Code, and is triggered when the performance of a party is prevented by an event outside its control, which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time the contract was agreed, and the effects of which could not be avoided by appropriate measures.
V. What if There is No Force Majeure Clause? Can Frustration be a Solution?
Since force majeure is, in almost all jurisdictions, a creature of contract rather than a rule imposed by general law, if there is no force majeure clause, an affected party will have to look to other provisions of the contract for potential routes to manage their difficulties. If the contract does not provide any solutions, it may, in certain circumstances, be possible to rely on the doctrine of frustration of contract.
In common law, a contract may be discharged or set aside on the grounds of frustration where an unforeseen event renders the contract physically or commercially impossible to fulfill. Unlike force majeure, which must be included in a contract to be invoked, frustration need not be referred to or included in a contract to be invoked by any party. However, if a force majeure clause exists, it would displace the doctrine of frustration for any event that falls within the scope of the force majeure clause. Nonetheless, one may still argue frustration for any event that falls outside of the scope of the force majeure clause. Thus, even if a contract includes a force majeure clause, a court may still find frustration to be applicable, though never simultaneously applicable to the same event.
Frustration requires that an unforeseen subsequent event outside the control of the parties has made the contract impossible to perform, or has transformed performance of the obligations under the contract into something so radically different from that which the parties intended that it would be unfair to hold the parties to their obligations. This is a high burden, and it is very difficult to show that a contract has been frustrated.
Regarding COVID-19, for individuals and businesses that wish to rely on frustration doctrine, the main hurdle to overcome would be the ability to demonstrate that the changes to the nature of contractual obligations are permanent, and not just temporary. COVID-19 consequences such as illness, quarantine, travel restrictions, shuttering of businesses and schools, or working from home, seem temporary. Nevertheless, in a contract where time is of the essence for the performance of a material term, and such performance is utterly prevented by the pandemic, frustration may can be argued.
The most obvious example of frustration of a contract might be when a party has died from COVID-19, and the main purpose of the contract relates to personal rights and obligations of the deceased party.
VI. Conclusion
The situation in which we currently find ourselves has no recent precedent and is extremely complex, as described above. The law provides some solutions under specific circumstances with the doctrines of force majeure, hardship, and even frustration. However, renewed negotiations between the parties involved, guided by good sense and good faith, will of course always be a better solution than breaching a contract, even on legally excusable grounds. To this end, timely and effective communication is an important aspect of objective good faith vis-à-vis the other party when re-evaluating contract obligations in light of unforeseen circumstances.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new attention to the importance of force majeure provisions and other legal doctrines that may provide relief in these unprecedented times. As described herein, the limits of the application of these doctrines can be fact-specific, and special considerations should be taken to provide adequate protections in all agreements.
Mauro Ribeiro 06/12/2020
An article that makes all sense on this unique year which was 2020 not only for people but also for the companies.
Commercial Legal Manager en Huawei Technologies
4 年Great article Mauro, pointing out clearly the key points to be considered and addressed when facing or analyzing a Force Majeure scenario. I would go even further on one point: timely and effective communication, under a good baith principle behavior between the Parties, is critical for a legally-effective communication, with an accurate and precise -as you mentioned- identification of which specific contractual obligations would be affected by the 'external factor', how will affected, and which solutions is the Supplier handling or analyzing to mitigate -if possible- such scenario. If this communication does not occur on time, almost immediately after the mere knowledge of that unexpected event (the affected Party does not need, or just does not wait until the impact occurs) should be communicated to the Customer), the submission to a Force Majeure Event could be easily challenged by the Customer, and could also be potentially considered by the applicable Court. Without observing and managing with due care of the above principles, under my understanding, Force Majeure application would be disqualified and not considered.
A great, practical overview that couldn’t be more timely.?
Territory Manager @ Dynatrace | Delivering Client Success and Sales Excellence
4 年Inspired and pertinent.?Good example of how we must understand, learn, adapt, and evolve. The law is created but it’s not finished. Well done Mauro and thanks for raising such an actual, global and key subject.
Digital Transformation | Innovation | Director | Lawyer | Compliance | Strategy Advisor | Speaker
4 年Very good article and well covered topic!!