DOCSLIB.ORG

Navigating Contractual Nonperformance Guide to U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Navigating Contractual Nonperformance Guide to U.S Navigating contractual nonperformance Guide to U.S. force majeure September 2020 Navigating contractual nonperformance Guide to U.S. force majeure The information in this guide is accurate as of August 2020. Navigating contractual nonperformance Guide to U.S. force majeure Examining the law Disputes regarding whether a party’s contractual obligations are effectively excused are inevitable given the COVID-19 pandemic’s ongoing disruptions to commerce. When is contractual performance excused? We have attempted to review all U.S. cases involving force majeure disputes and similar common law defenses to nonperformance. This guide cites to more than 1,000 decisions and aggregates the governing caselaw within each U.S. state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We focus on cases involving: the enforceability of contractual force majeure provisions including a focus on causation, 1. mitigation, and foreseeability requirements; common law concepts such as impossibility where no contractual force majeure provisions 2. exist; and application to the sale of goods context, including demands for adequate assurances, 3. commercial impracticability, and substitute performance. Should you need to discuss any issue in more detail please feel free to contact us. Matt Gatewood Meghana Shah Partner Partner Principal Author and Editor T: +1 202 383 0122 T: +1 202 389 5077 mattgatewood meghanashah @eversheds-sutherland.com @eversheds-sutherland.com 3 Navigating contractual nonperformance Guide to U.S. force majeure Contents Alabama .......................................................... 6 Nebraska .....................................................105 Alaska .............................................................. 9 Nevada ........................................................107 Arizona .......................................................... 12 New Hampshire ........................................109 Arkansas ....................................................... 15 New Jersey .................................................111 California ...................................................... 18 New Mexico ............................................... 115 Colorado ......................................................24 New York .................................................... 118 Connecticut ................................................. 27 North Carolina...........................................126 Delaware ......................................................30 North Dakota .............................................130 District of Columbia ...................................35 Ohio ............................................................ 132 Florida ...........................................................38 Oklahoma ................................................... 137 Georgia .........................................................42 Oregon .......................................................140 Hawaii ...........................................................46 Pennsylvania ..............................................143 Idaho .............................................................48 Puerto Rico ................................................148 Illinois ............................................................ 51 Rhode Island ..............................................150 Indiana ..........................................................56 South Carolina .......................................... 153 Iowa ...............................................................60 South Dakota ............................................. 157 Kansas ...........................................................63 Tennessee...................................................159 Kentucky .......................................................67 Texas............................................................163 Louisiana ...................................................... 72 Utah ..............................................................171 Maine.............................................................76 Vermont ...................................................... 173 Maryland .......................................................78 Virginia ........................................................ 175 Massachusetts .............................................82 Washington ................................................180 Michigan .......................................................86 West Virginia ..............................................183 Minnesota.....................................................90 Wisconsin ...................................................186 Mississippi ....................................................94 Wyoming ....................................................189 Missouri ........................................................97 Montana .....................................................102 Our team .................................................... 191 4 Navigating contractual nonperformance Guide to U.S. force majeure 5 Navigating contractual nonperformance Guide to U.S. force majeure Alabama Alabama common law recognizes force majeure, though the case law interpreting force majeure disputes is limited. Disputes are unlikely to be resolved via summary judgment. Alabama courts recognize only a limited impossibility argument and rarely apply the defense of frustration of purpose. The key cases are broken down as follows: I. Force Majeure II. Common law remedies A. General requirements A. Impossibility B. Causation B. Frustration of purpose C. Mitigation/beyond a party’s control D. Foreseeability I. Force majeure majeure clause. Id.; see also Monsanto Co. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 616 F.2d 887, 888 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding A. General requirements summary judgment precluded where the force The defense of force majeure exists under Alabama majeure clause was ambiguous as to whether common law. Specifically, “when loss is proximately negligence constituted a force majeure event). caused by an act of God which is not foreseeable, [a party] may not be liable for failure to effectuate the B. Causation performance of a contract.” Ala. Dep’t of Pub. Health To be considered an “act of God,” the force majeure v. Lee, 236 So. 3d 863, 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). event causing the injury must have been the Alabama courts have had few occasions to interpret proximate cause of the injury, such that no other act the enforceability of contractual force majeure could have prevented the result. See Ala. Dep’t of Pub. provisions. At least when applying New York law, one Health, 236 So. 3d at 869. Alabama federal court explained that “performance In Alabama Department of Public Health v. Lee, the will only be excused if the contract includes the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the finding of specific event that actually prevents performance.” an administrative agency that declined to apply a force See Drummond Coal Sales, Inc. v. Kinder Morgan majeure defense after a flood destroyed the records of Operating LP “C”, No. 2:16-CV-00345-SGC, 2017 one of the contracting parties. Id. The agency found WL 3149442, at *8 (N.D. Ala. July 25, 2017). that because the party had misplaced her records When force majeure is disputed, courts will rarely before the flood, her negligence—and not the flood— grant summary judgment, particularly when the was the proximate cause of her injury. Id. force majeure provision is ambiguous. See Breland Where a party’s business decision not to perform is v. Levada EF Five, LLC, No. CV 14-00158-CG-C, 2015 the reason for nonperformance, the party’s force WL 7572339, at *6 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 24, 2015). majeure argument likely will not be successful. See For example, in Breland, the U.S. District Court for the Drummond Coal Sales, 2017 WL 3149442, at *9–10 Southern District of Alabama held that where the force (finding the party “seeks to be excused from its majeure clause excused performance if the six-month contractual duties due, at least in part, to financial moving average price of natural gas fell below a certain considerations caused by environmental regulations”) dollar amount but failed to identify the controlling (relying on Macalloy Corp. v. Metallurg., Inc., 728 price index for natural gas, the court could not grant N.Y.S.2d 14, 14–15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)). summary judgment on the applicability of the force 6 Navigating contractual nonperformance Guide to U.S. force majeure C. Mitigation/beyond a party’s control examined the parties’ contract under New York law, In Alabama, a party seeking to rely on a force majeure the court surveyed cases across the country to provision must act in good faith to mitigate the effects conclude that regulatory changes were foreseeable of the force majeure event. See Corona Coal Co. v. as a matter of law, which precluded the company’s Robert P. Hyams Coal Co., 9 F.2d 361, 361–62 (5th defenses for nonperformance based on impossibility Cir. 1925). and frustration of purpose. 2017 WL 3149442, at *5 (collecting cases and citing Sabine Corp. v. ONG W., In Corona Coal, the Fifth Circuit held that a party Inc., 725 F. Supp. 1157, 1177 (W.D. Okla. 1989)). could not rely on labor strikes and car shortages as a defense against delivering goods under a contract Because, however, the parties’ force majeure provision where the evidence showed that the party could have did not require unforeseeability, the foreseeability of delivered some of the goods under the contract and the regulatory changes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Third Party Beneficiaries and Contractual Networks
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2015 Third Party Beneficiaries and Contractual Networks Alan Schwartz [email protected] Robert E. Scott Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Alan Schwartz & Robert E. Scott, Third Party Beneficiaries and Contractual Networks, JOURNAL OF LEGAL ANALYSIS, VOL. 7, P. 325, 2015; YALE LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. 523 (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1900 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES AND CONTRACTUAL NETWORKS Alan Schwartz* and Robert E. Scott** Contact: Robert E. Scott Columbia Law School 435 W. 116th Street New York, New York 10027 212-854-0072 fax: 212-854-7946 [email protected] 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2550436 Abstract An increasing trend of economic agents is to form productive associations such as networks, platforms and other hybrids. Subsets of these agents contract with each other to further their network project and these contracts can create benefits for, or impose costs on, agents who are not contract parties. Contract law regulates third party claims against contract parties with the third party beneficiary doctrine, which directs courts to ask whether the contracting parties “intended” to benefit a particular third party.
    [Show full text]
  • Oral Contracts to Devise Realty -- Right of Third Party Beneficiary to Recover on Quantum Meruit William E
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 41 | Number 4 Article 15 6-1-1963 Oral Contracts to Devise Realty -- Right of Third Party Beneficiary to Recover on Quantum Meruit William E. Shinn Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William E. Shinn Jr., Oral Contracts to Devise Realty -- Right of Third Party Beneficiary to Recover on Quantum Meruit, 41 N.C. L. Rev. 890 (1963). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol41/iss4/15 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41 Acts, which were enacted for the benefit of the highway victim. The General Assembly might well consider changing this rule based purely upon legal reasoning without sufficient regard to practical considerations. JOHN BRYAN WHITLEY Oral Contracts to Devise Realty-Right of Third Party Beneficiary to Recover on Quantum Meruit In North Carolina an oral contract to devise real property is void under the Statute of Frauds,' and part performance by the promisee will not remove the contract from the operation of the Statute.2 However, the promisee who performs services pursuant to such a contract has a remedy on implied assumpsit or quantum meruit to recover the value of the services rendered.' Pickelsimer v. Pickelsimer4 presented the question of whether the third party beneficiary of a contract that is void under the Statute of Frauds may recover on quantum meruit the value of services ren- dered by the promisee pursuant to the contract.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 State Survey(Longdoc)
    AGREEMENTS TO INDEMNIFY & GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: A Fifty State Survey WEINBERG WHEELER H U D G I N S G U N N & D I A L TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Alabama 4 Alaska 7 Arizona 12 Arkansas 15 California 19 Damages arising out of bodily injury or death to persons. 22 Damage to property. 22 Any other damage or expense arising under either (a) or (b). 22 Colorado 23 Connecticut 26 Delaware 29 Florida 32 Georgia 36 Hawaii 42 Idaho 45 Illinois 47 Indiana 52 Iowa 59 Kansas 65 Kentucky 68 Louisiana 69 Maine 72 Maryland 77 Massachusetts 81 Michigan 89 Minnesota 91 Mississippi 94 Missouri 97 Montana 100 Nebraska 104 Nevada 107 New Hampshire 109 New Jersey 111 New Mexico 115 New York 118 North Carolina 122 North Dakota 124 Ohio 126 Oklahoma 130 Oregon 132 Pennsylvania 139 Rhode Island 143 South Carolina 146 South Dakota 150 Tennessee 153 Texas 157 Utah 161 Vermont 165 Virginia 168 Washington 171 West Virginia 175 Wisconsin 177 Wyoming 180 INTRODUCTION Indemnity is compensation given to make another whole from a loss already sustained. It generally contemplates reimbursement by one person or entity of the entire amount of the loss or damage sustained by another. Indemnity takes two forms – common law and contractual. While this survey is limited to contractual indemnity, it is important to note that many states have looked to the law relating to common law indemnity in developing that state’s jurisprudence respecting contractual indemnity. Common law indemnity is the shifting of responsibility for damage or injury from one tortfeasor to another
    [Show full text]
  • Acceptance and Receipt: an Anomaly in the Statute of Frauds Minn
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1953 Acceptance and Receipt: An Anomaly in the Statute of Frauds Minn. L. Rev. Editorial Board Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Editorial Board, Minn. L. Rev., "Acceptance and Receipt: An Anomaly in the Statute of Frauds" (1953). Minnesota Law Review. 2712. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/2712 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ACCEPTANCE AND RECEIPT: AN ANOMALY IN THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS The enactment of the English Statute of Frauds' in 1677 has been attributed to the ineffectual trial procedure of that period.2 Both the practice of awarding new trials and the development of the rules of evidence were in a formative stage.3 At that time juries could reject the evidence heard and reach a verdict on their own privately secured information,4 and the parties to the action, who were not familiar with the facts, could not testify.5 Fraud and perjury were to be prevented primarily by removing from juries any determination of liability in certain cases unless the statutory formalities were met.6 Furthermore, the turbulent times following the Civil War, the Commonwealth, and the Restoration probably encouraged claims without any foundation. 7 The present day statutes of frauds which relate to the sale of goods are derived from Section seventeen of the English Statute of Frauds.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Buyer Fails to Prove That Letter Evidenced a Valid Requirements Contract Karina Zabicki
    Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 10 | Issue 3 Article 5 1998 Medical Buyer Fails to Prove that Letter Evidenced a Valid Requirements Contract Karina Zabicki Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Karina Zabicki Medical Buyer Fails to Prove that Letter Evidenced a Valid Requirements Contract, 10 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 217 (1998). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol10/iss3/5 This Recent Case is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recent Cases And, part three required that the Unlike the defendant in EDIAS, companies in Arizona. Moreover, "exercise ofjurisdiction must be Cybersell FLs only contact with there was no evidence that any reasonable." Arizona was the information it Arizonan had enlisted Cybersell FL's Cybersell AZ relied on several posted on its web page. As a result, web assistance. Essentially, cases for support, but the court the court found EDIAS unpersuasive Cybersell FL's presence in Arizona found the cases unpersuasive for Cybersell AZ. was negligible. because the holdings were broader Instead, the Ninth Circuit The court concluded that posting than Cybersell AZ suggested. For determined that Cybersell FL took information on the Internet without example, Cybersell AZ relied on an no steps to "purposefully avail" taking steps to purposefully avail Arizona case where the court stated itself of Arizona's benefits, whereas oneself of the laws of the forum that a defendant should not "escape the defendant in EDIAS did.
    [Show full text]
  • Force Majeure Weather Modeling by Dr
    Force Majeure Weather Modeling By Dr. Gui Ponce de Leon, PE, PMP, LEED AP, PMA Consultants LLC Darrell D. Field, PE, LEED AP, PMA Consultants LLC John M. Zann, PE, LEED AP, PMA Consultants LLC Abstract Although adverse weather has impacted construction since before the pyramids, and when unusually severe is typically only deserving of a time extension without compensation, weather issues continue to generate their fair share of disputes. Even if not disputed, all significant grass root construction projects face weather impact issues that the parties may wish to recognize on an ongoing basis. Existing weather modeling methods can be cumbersome, overly technical and resource intense. In searching for practical approaches, the authors have developed new methodologies for modeling force majeure weather that provide objective evaluation of adverse weather impacts, for forensic as well as contemporaneous applications. Guidance for calculating normal adverse weather and force majeure weather day losses is provided, with examples to illustrate the new concepts. The focus of this paper is on the technical aspects of normal adverse weather and force majeure weather as opposed to the legal aspects. I. Adverse Weather Construction is impacted by adverse weather, with the actual impact varying from project to project, the site location and the region. The greatest impacts of adverse weather are upon construction exposed to the elements, whether directly as in the case of earthwork, concrete, etc., or when working inside interior, non-conditioned spaces. Precipitation, high winds, cold and hot temperatures, high rates of snowfall, not to mention exceptional weather events (acts of God), can all adversely affect progress, the production rate of the workforce and worker productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Experience of the French Civil Code
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 20 Number 2 Article 3 Winter 1995 Codes as Straight-Jackets, Safeguards, and Alibis: The Experience of the French Civil Code Oliver Moreleau Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Recommended Citation Oliver Moreleau, Codes as Straight-Jackets, Safeguards, and Alibis: The Experience of the French Civil Code, 20 N.C. J. INT'L L. 273 (1994). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol20/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Codes as Straight-Jackets, Safeguards, and Alibis: The Experience of the French Civil Code Cover Page Footnote International Law; Commercial Law; Law This article is available in North Carolina Journal of International Law: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol20/ iss2/3 Codes as Straight-Jackets, Safeguards, and Alibis: The Experience of the French Civil Code Olivier Moriteaut I. Introduction: The Civil Code as a Straight-Jacket? Since 1789, which marked the year of the French Revolution, France has known no fewer than thirteen constitutions.' This fact is scarcely evidence of political stability, although it is fair to say that the Constitution of 1958, of the Fifth Republic, has remained in force for over thirty-five years. On the other hand, the Civil Code (Code), which came into force in 1804, has remained substantially unchanged throughout this entire period.
    [Show full text]
  • Use the Force? Understanding Force Majeure Clauses
    Use the Force? Understanding Force Majeure Clauses J. Hunter Robinson† J. Christopher Selman†† Whitt Steineker††† Alexander G. Thrasher†††† Introduction It has been said that, sooner or later, everything old is new again.1 In the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) sweeping the globe in 2020, a heretofore largely overlooked and even less understood nineteenth century legal term has come to the forefront of American jurisprudence: force majeure. Force majeure has become a topic du jour in the COVID-19 world with individuals and companies around the world seeking to excuse non- † B.S. (2011), Auburn University; J.D. (2014), Emory University School of Law. Hunter Robinson is an associate at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Hunter is a member of the firm’s litigation and banking and financial services practice groups and represents clients in commercial litigation matters across the country. †† B.S. (2007), Auburn University; J.D. (2012), University of South Carolina School of Law. Chris Selman is a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Chris is a members of the firm’s construction and government contracts practice group. He has extensive experience advising clients at every stage of a construction project, managing the resolution of construction disputes domestically and internationally, and drafting and negotiating contracts for a variety of contractor and owner clients. ††† B.A. (2003), University of Alabama; J.D. (2008), Georgetown University Law Center. Whitt Steineker is a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Whitt is a member of the firm’s litigation practice group, where he advises clients on a full range of services and routinely represents companies in complex commercial litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • DWSRF Class Deviation for Water Rights
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF WATER NOV 2 6 201 9 MF:MORANDUM SUBJECT: Approval ofClass Deviation from the Regulatory Prohibition on the Use ofthe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to Purchase Water Rights FROM: Anita Maria Thompkins. Directorr ~vf._ j //~ Drinking Water Protection Divisio~ /i( tVZ,,1//4~ TO: Water Division Directors Regions I-X The Office ofGrants and Debarment has approved a class deviation from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) regulatory prohibition at 40 CFR 35.3520(e)(2) (see attached memo). The clnss deviation al lows fo r the use of DWSRF funds for the purchase of water rights. which supports mt:eting the public health protection objectives ofthe Safe Drinking Water Act. For this class deviation, the purchase of 'water rights' is defined as the monetary value ofthe right to use \Valer from a given source (e.g., a river, lake, aquifer) to supply drinking water to an existing population. The purchase of water rights could include, but is not limited to, the following: the payment for the transfer of water rights from one entity to another, the purchase ofgroundwater credits, the purchase of storage capacity in an existing raw water reservoir, or the purchase ofnewly created/newly available \\,1 ter rights. A DWSRF project must meet the criteria outlined in the attached document. --Policy and Technical r·mluationfor a DWSRF Class Deviation.for Purchase ofWater Rights'· to be covered under this class deviation. States choosing to use this class deviation for assistance agreements involving water rights should notify the ir EPA Regional Project Officer of their intent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Armadollar-Petrodollar Coalition and the Middle East
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Rowley, Robin; Bichler, Shimshon; Nitzan, Jonathan Working Paper The Armadollar-Petrodollar Coalition and the Middle East Working Papers, Department of Economics, McGill University, No. 10/89 Provided in Cooperation with: The Bichler & Nitzan Archives Suggested Citation: Rowley, Robin; Bichler, Shimshon; Nitzan, Jonathan (1989) : The Armadollar-Petrodollar Coalition and the Middle East, Working Papers, Department of Economics, McGill University, No. 10/89, The Bichler and Nitzan Archives, Toronto, http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/134/ This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/157847 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    What's Wrong With Restitution? 221 What's Wrong With Restitution? David Stevens' and Jason W. Neyers" The law of restitution has developed out of the law Le droit en matiere de restitution emane du droit of quasi-contract and the law of constructive trust. du quasi-contrat et du droit de la ftducie Inadequate attention to the logic and coherence of d'interpretation. Mais I'attention insufftsante doctrines in the law of restitution, however, renders accordie a la logtque et a la cohirence des this new law as opaque and confused as its doctrines du droit en matiere de restitution rend ce predecessor. This is largely due to the remedial nouveau droit aussi opaque etfiou que le pricident, mentality of the common law. The remedy to the ce qui est largement altribuable a la mentaliti remedial mentality is to concentrate future efforts in remediatrice du common law. Lafafon de contrer stating doctrine on defining rights, not remedies. celte mentaliti est d'axer les efforts futurs de The precedent for this type of change in method is definition de la doctrine sur la definition des droits the transformation that occurred in contract and et non des reparations. Ce changement dans la tort over the past 100 years, inspired, in part, by facon de prodder a son origine dans la civilian theories of private law. transformation survenue dans le droit contractuel et The right that generates the remedy restitution is le droit de la responsabilile' delictuelle au cours des the cause of action in unjust enrichment. It arises cent dernieres annies, et inspires, en parlie, des where there has been a non-consensual receipt and theories civiles de droit prive.
    [Show full text]
  • A Force Majeure Event?
    COVID-19: A FORCE MAJEURE EVENT? Following the outbreak of the novel coronavirus and the consequential surveillance and controls introduced by a number of governments including the Luxembourg government, it may become essential to determine whether these events may be considered as force majeure events under Luxembourg law. Following the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, one question arising with regard to contracts is whether this outbreak and its consequences, especially also taking into account the measures taken by different governments, including amongst others confinement measures, closure of the borders, possible closure of companies, etc. - may be considered as a force majeure event. This may be envisaged from two perspectives. Firstly, there may be a force majeure clause in a given agreement. Such a clause is normally used to describe a contractual term by which one or both of the parties is entitled to suspend performance of its affected obligations or to claim an extension of time for performance, following a specified event or events beyond its control. It may also entitle termination of the contract, usually if it exceeds a specified duration. Whether or not the outbreak of the novel coronavirus will constitute force majeure in a contract is very much a case of interpretation of the relevant wording in the contract, and such clauses would need to be analysed in detail. Secondly, according to general Luxembourg civil law principles, a force majeure event may be raised by a party responsible of having breached its contractual obligations in order to be discharged from its liability. According to Luxembourg case law, a force majeure event has to be (i) external to the liable party, (ii) unpredictable and (iii) irresistible.
    [Show full text]