DOCSLIB.ORG

COVID-19, Force Majeure and the Impossibility of Performance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COVID-19, Force Majeure and the Impossibility of Performance In managing the volatility and uncer- are interpreted narrowly and often are HOT TOPIC tainty caused by the COVID-19 pandem- difficult to invoke. ic, industries have continued to grapple COVID-19, Force Majeure with complex legal and commercial Courts generally assess the follow- and the Impossibility of challenges, from manufacturing shut- ing criteria when assessing a party’s Performance: US and UK downs, interrupted supply chains and reliance on force majeure: (i) whether Perspectives quarantines, to dislocated labor markets the event is force majeure under the and restrictions on trade and movement, contract; (ii) whether nonperformance including the practical shutdown, or was foreseeable and could be mitigat- ed; and (iii) whether performance is Tom Canning near shutdown, of substantial portions Partner impossible. Courts narrowly apply force [email protected] of the world economy. +44 20.7615.3047 majeure to the events enumerated in the contract. Force majeure clauses Moreover, governments have inter- Jacqueline Chan often list the specific events (e.g., Partner vened to provide liquidity and emer- [email protected] floods, fires, and earthquakes) and/ gency relief to credit markets and +65 6428.2433 or categories of events (e.g., natural vulnerable industries and to preserve William Charles disasters, terrorism, and government Partner actions) that can potentially excuse [email protected] performance under the contract. +44 20.7615.3076 Aled Davies Force majeure seeks Even if the event giving rise to nonper- Partner formance is within the scope of the [email protected] to protect parties to +81 3.5410.2851 force majeure clause, a party general- ly must also demonstrate that (i) the Allan Marks a contract from being Partner event was unforeseeable, and nonper- [email protected] held to performance formance could not be mitigated, and +1 424.386.4376 (ii) performance is impossible, not obligations which, Daniel Perry simply economically challenging. Partner [email protected] due to events outside +1 212.530.5083 FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSES of their own control Jed Schwartz As with all contractual disputes, courts Partner and expectation, they generally begin their analysis of force [email protected] majeure clauses by looking at the terms +1 212.530.5283 cannot fulfill. of the agreement and the intent of the Nicholas Smith drafting parties. Courts construe force Partner [email protected] majeure clauses narrowly and will gener- +1 202.835.7522 payrolls. Nonetheless, pandemic-in- ally only excuse a party’s nonperfor- duced economic uncertainty has led mance if the event that caused the party’s Justen Fleming Special Counsel many companies, lenders and inves- nonperformance is specifically enumer- [email protected] tors to seek guidance on their rights ated. When an event is not specifically +81 3.5410.2852 with respect to contractual obliga- enumerated in the force majeure clause, Brenton Culpepper tions, especially in the key area of force but there is a general catchall provision in Associate the clause, the catchall provision is “not to [email protected] majeure provisions. +1 212.530.5626 be given expansive meaning.” Instead, it FORCE MAJEURE IN THE UNITED is “confined to those things of the same Dan Hooks kind or nature as the particular matters Associate STATES [email protected] mentioned.” Generally, courts also require +1 212.530.5541 The concept of force majeure seeks to that the event must be unforeseeable. protect parties to a contract from being Vasiliki Katsarou Associate held to performance obligations which, Even if an event in question fits within [email protected] due to events outside of their own the delineated events that could poten- +44 20.7615.3282 control and expectation, they cannot tially excuse performance under the Joseph Richmond fulfill. An assessment of a party’s force majeure clause, the nonperforming Associate right to invoke a force majeure clause [email protected] party still must establish that the event +65 6428.2578 requires a review of the contract at in question actually prevented, hindered issue. However, force majeure clauses and/or delayed its performance under Milbank.com© 2020 Milbank LLP. To be added to our mailing list, contact us at: [email protected] Winter 2020 | ProjectsPlus is an information source for clients of Milbank LLP. Its contents should not be construed as legal advice and readers should not act upon the information in this publication without consulting counsel. the contract. Force majeure clauses be given expansive meaning.” Instead, factors or financial hardships gener- often contain provisions requiring it is “confined to those things of the ally do not constitute force majeure parties to exercise reasonable diligence same kind or nature as the particu- events that excuse performance under to avoid or overcome the force majeure lar matters mentioned.” For example, a contract. However, the specific terms event and its consequences, failing a force majeure clause listing floods, of the contract at issue and jurisdic- which performance will not be excused fires, and earthquakes likely would not tion governing their interpretation may under the force majeure clause. But include COVID-19 because disease and provide a basis for considering economic even in the absence of such provisions, government action are not expressly hardship when exercising force majeure. New York courts appear to still require listed. However, a force majeure clause parties to make such a showing. Other listing natural disasters, terrorism, and OVERCOMING A FORESEEABILITY jurisdictions, including Texas, have held government actions may include the REQUIREMENT IN POST-COVID-19 that such a showing need only be made government action taken to contain CONTRACTS when expressly required by the force COVID-19, but likely would not include A party exercising a force majeure claim majeure clause. COVID-19 itself. generally must establish that the event giving rise to nonperformance was CONTRACTS WITHOUT A FORCE COVID-19 AND THE SCOPE OF unforeseeable, depending on jurisdic- MAJEURE CLAUSE FORCE MAJEURE tion. If COVID-19 is the event giving rise Whether COVID-19 or the governmen- Courts are likely to refuse a party’s to nonperformance, a party likely will tal actions taken to contain COVID-19 force majeure claim if the underly- face difficulty in excusing performance are within the scope of a force majeure ing contract does not include a force pursuant to a force majeure clause if clause depends on whether those majeure clause. In such a circumstance, the contract was executed after the events are listed or are of the same a party may look to common law tools World Health Organization declared type of events listed in the clause. to excuse nonperformance, such as the COVID-19 a pandemic because COVID- Courts construe force majeure clauses doctrines of impossibility and, where 19 would be deemed a foreseeable narrowly and will generally only excuse available, impracticability. risk. On the other hand, because the a party’s nonperformance if the event COVID-19 situation has continually that caused the party’s nonperfor- ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND FORCE changed over the course of the year, as mance is specifically enumerated. When MAJEURE has the response of different national, an event is not specifically enumerated Economic hardship does not generally state, and local governments, a party in the force majeure clause, but there provide enough basis to exercise force may be able to argue that the partic- is a general catch-all provision in the majeure. Absent express contractual ular consequence of these responses clause, the catch-all provision is “not to provisions to the contrary, economic was not foreseeable. Milbank.com© 2020 Milbank LLP. To be added to our mailing list, contact us at: [email protected] Winter 2020 | ProjectsPlus is an information source for clients of Milbank LLP. Its contents should not be construed as legal advice and readers should not act upon the information in this publication without consulting counsel. “epidemic” are frequently listed as one perform an obligation under its of the specific events or circumstanc- contract (the affected contract) es that may constitute force majeure because its supplier is claiming (as long as the general requirements of force majeure due to the outbreak. the force majeure provision are satis- In this case, the affected party fied), or the COVID-19 outbreak may will need to show that the suppli- be caught by a more general term such er’s claim for force majeure meets as “act of God,” or simply as an event the standards under the affected or circumstance beyond the affected contract, and that the affected party’s reasonable control. contract expressly allows a force majeure claim when the affected Although this list of events or circum- party’s performance is impacted stances is neither exhaustive nor by a force majeure event some- conclusive, it should be noted that where else along the supply chain. the principle of ejusdem generis often This is often referred to as ‘chain operates to narrow construction of force majeure.’ such a clause when a party is trying to argue that an additional, unlisted event It is worth noting in this regard that the falls within the definition. English courts have held that a failure of performance due to the provision of FORCE MAJEURE IN THE UNITED MAKING A FORCE MAJEURE CLAIM insufficient fin ancial res ources, or los s KINGDOM of market due to the event, is unlikely To make its claim, the affected party The concept of force majeure, a civil to amount to force majeure. Accord- would need to establish that the law derived term, has no universal- ingly, a change in economic/market outbreak is contemplated as a force ly applicable meaning under English circumstances due to the outbreak majeure event as an “epidemic” or an law. Rather, it is to be assessed on a affecting the profitability of a contract “act of God” or, if relevant, that the contract by contract basis, applying or the ease with which the parties’ obli- restrictions placed upon companies normal principles of contractual inter- gations can be performed, is perhaps pretation/construction.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Economic Implications of the Doctrine of Impossibility, 26 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 26 | Issue 5 Article 5 1-1975 The conomicE Implications of the Doctrine of Impossibility Stephen S. Ashley Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen S. Ashley, The Economic Implications of the Doctrine of Impossibility, 26 Hastings L.J. 1251 (1975). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol26/iss5/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY If one accepts as a norm Cardozo's maxim that "[t]he final cause of law is the welfare of society,"' economic theory may provide a useful basis for evaluating the social consequences of legal doctrines. This note will demonstrate the usefulness of applying an economic analysis to the doctrine of impossibility of contract performance, the legal prin- ciple applied to contract disputes which arise when an unforeseen catas- trophe prevents performance of a contract whose terms do not allocate the risk of that catastrophe. The traditional legal analysis, by limiting its view to the allocation of losses which have already occurred and by ignoring the problem of assigning the risk of future losses, has pro- duced inconsistent and arbitrary risk assignments, to society's detri- ment. The proposals of other legal writers would have the same effect. This note will demonstrate through an economic analysis that the law should allocate the risk of disruption unequivocally to the party better able to insure against the risk, subject to reassignment by the parties in their contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Contracts - Impossibility Existing at the Time of the Formation of the Contract No Defense
    DePaul Law Review Volume 7 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1957 Article 12 Contracts - Impossibility Existing at the Time of the Formation of the Contract No Defense DePaul College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation DePaul College of Law, Contracts - Impossibility Existing at the Time of the Formation of the Contract No Defense, 7 DePaul L. Rev. 114 (1957) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol7/iss1/12 This Case Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I "9t DE PAUL LAW REVIEW with other issues, i.e., the statute controlling licensing of the exhibiting of motion pictures, 17 and a criminal statute.' 8 In any event, the court held that "nudity in itself and without lewdness or dirtiness is not obscenity in law or in common sense"' 9 and appears not to adhere to the possible ex- tension of obscenity to that which provokes lustful or lascivious thoughts, as it quotes the following from the decision rendered in People v. Muller: If the test of obscenity or indecency in a picture or statue is its capability of suggesting impure thoughts, then indeed all such representations might be con- sidered as indecent or obscene. 20 That the decisions of the Supreme Court in Roth and Alberts have crystallized some of the concepts and removed many of the ambiguities existing in the treatment of obscene publications is evident.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Peace in the Battle of the Forms: a Framework for Making Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207 Work, 69 N.C
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 69 | Number 3 Article 3 3-1-1991 Restoring Peace in the Battle of the orF ms: A Framework for Making Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207 Work Caroline N. Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Caroline N. Brown, Restoring Peace in the Battle of the Forms: A Framework for Making Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207 Work, 69 N.C. L. Rev. 893 (1991). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol69/iss3/3 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 Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESTORING PEACE IN THE BATTLE OF THE FORMS: A FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION 2-207 WORK CAROLINE N. BROWN* The promulgation of Uniform Commercial Code section 2-207 led to a host of difficulties in interpretationand application. In this Article, ProfessorBrown argues that many of the problems associatedwith sec- tion 2-207 are avoided when one interpretsthe statute in light of its pre- Code foundation. Relying upon the commercial context and analogy to section 2-206(1)(b), she demonstrates that section 2-207 represents the latitude in acceptance implicitly extended by the offeror in the special context ofform contracts. She concludes that most additionalterms in the offeree's form automatically become part of the contract, limiting the "materialalteration" exclusion of subsection (2)(b) to terms which would be substantially surprising to the offeror.
    [Show full text]
  • Impediment, Hardship, and the Excuse Doctrines
    Pace International Law Review Volume 27 Issue 1 Commercial Edition Article 5 Spring 2015 April 2015 Contractual Excuse Under the CISG: Impediment, Hardship, and the Excuse Doctrines Larry A. DiMatteo Warrington College of Business Administration Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Contracts Commons, International Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Larry A. DiMatteo, Contractual Excuse Under the CISG: Impediment, Hardship, and the Excuse Doctrines, 27 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 258 (2015) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol27/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 5. PROFESSOR LARRY DIMATTEO.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/29/15 5:20 PM CONTRACTUAL EXCUSE UNDER THE CISG: IMPEDIMENT, HARDSHIP, AND THE EXCUSE DOCTRINES Larry A. DiMatteo * I. Introduction II. Hardship in German and American Law a. German Notion of Changed Circumstances b. Doctrine of Impracticability in American Law III. EXCUSE AND HARDSHIP UNDER PICC AND PECL a. PICC b. PECL IV. APPLICATION OF EXCUSE AND HARDSHIP UNDER CISG ARTICLE 79: IMPOSSIBILITY AND HARDSHIP a. CISG Article 79 b. Is Impossibility or Act of God Always an Im- pediment under Article 79? c. Hardship as Excuse: Scope of Article 79 d. Argument for Hardship as Article 79 Excuse V. CISG JURISPRUDENCE: IMPOSSIBILITY AND FORESEEABILITY a.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of the Impossibility Defense Gerhard Wagner Georg-August University of Goettingen
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 27 Article 4 Issue 1 Fall 1995 1995 In Defense of the Impossibility Defense Gerhard Wagner Georg-August University of Goettingen Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Gerhard Wagner, In Defense of the Impossibility Defense, 27 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 55 (1995). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol27/iss1/4 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Essay In Defense of the Impossibility Defense GerhardWagner* I. INTRODUCTION Generally, the common law follows the rule of pacta sunt servanda' under which contractual obligations are absolutely binding on the parties. 2 The impossibility defense is an exception to this general rule.3 Under the impossibility defense, a promisor may default with- out incurring liability for the promisee's expectation damages.4 * Akademischer Rat (Junior Lecturer) at Georg-August University of Goettingen, Germany; J.D., 1989, University of Goettingen; L.L.M., 1995, University of Chicago. The author is deeply indebted to Richard Craswell of the University of Chicago Law School for many helpful comments on an earlier draft of this Essay. 1. "Pacta sunt servanda" means "agreements (and stipulations) of the parties (to a contract) must be observed." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1109 (6th ed. 1990). 2. For an erudite discussion of pacta sunt servanda, see generally Richard Hyland, Pacta Sunt Servanda: A Meditation, 34 VA.
    [Show full text]
  • Contract Basics for Litigators: Illinois by Diane Cafferata and Allison Huebert, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with Practical Law Commercial Litigation
    STATE Q&A Contract Basics for Litigators: Illinois by Diane Cafferata and Allison Huebert, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with Practical Law Commercial Litigation Status: Law stated as of 01 Jun 2020 | Jurisdiction: Illinois, United States This document is published by Practical Law and can be found at: us.practicallaw.tr.com/w-022-7463 Request a free trial and demonstration at: us.practicallaw.tr.com/about/freetrial A Q&A guide to state law on contract principles and breach of contract issues under Illinois common law. This guide addresses contract formation, types of contracts, general contract construction rules, how to alter and terminate contracts, and how courts interpret and enforce dispute resolution clauses. This guide also addresses the basics of a breach of contract action, including the elements of the claim, the statute of limitations, common defenses, and the types of remedies available to the non-breaching party. Contract Formation to enter into a bargain, made in a manner that justifies another party’s understanding that its assent to that 1. What are the elements of a valid contract bargain is invited and will conclude it” (First 38, LLC v. NM Project Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 142680-U, ¶ 51 (unpublished in your jurisdiction? order under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1113 (8th ed.2004) and Restatement (Second) of In Illinois, the elements necessary for a valid contract are: Contracts § 24 (1981))). • An offer. • An acceptance. Acceptance • Consideration. Under Illinois law, an acceptance occurs if the party assented to the essential terms contained in the • Ascertainable Material terms.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of New Hampshire
    THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0536, Bellevue Properties, Inc. v. Settlers’ Tennis, Inc. & a., the court on July 26, 2016, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the court concludes that a formal written opinion is unnecessary in this case. The plaintiff, Bellevue Properties, Inc. (Bellevue), appeals, and defendant New Hampshire Department of Transportation (the State) and defendants, Settlers’ Tennis, Inc., Settlers’ R1, Inc., and 13 Green Street Properties, LLC (collectively referred to in this order as Settlers), cross-appeal, orders of the Superior Court (Smukler, J.) related to Bellevue’s right to access and use a swimming pool and tennis courts located on property owned by Settlers. We affirm. I. Background The parties own property in “Settlers’ Green,” a mixed-use development that includes retail space, apartments that were once condominiums, the North Conway Grand Hotel, and the “Tennis Green Lot,” on which there is an outdoor swimming pool and six tennis courts (four concrete and two clay). For ease of reference we refer to the swimming pool and tennis courts as “the Tennis Green Lot amenities.” The Tennis Green Lot, which Settlers owns, is across the street from the “Hotel Property,” which Bellevue has owned since 1999. The Hotel Property comprises two lots, one on which the hotel is located and the other on which hotel parking is located. According to Bellevue, and not apparently disputed by Settlers or the State, the hotel currently has 150 rooms and 50 privately-owned suites. There are three swimming pools on the Hotel Property: an indoor pool and two outdoor pools (the Hotel Property amenities).
    [Show full text]
  • Tax-Deductible Conservation Easements and the Essential Perpetuity Requirements Nancy Mclaughlin S.J
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship Summer 2017 Tax-Deductible Conservation Easements and the Essential Perpetuity Requirements Nancy McLaughlin S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons, Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift ommonC s, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Tax-Deductible Conservation Easements and the Essential Perpetuity Requirements (July 25, 2017). Virginia Tax Review, Forthcoming This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Law Scholarship at Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND THE ESSENTIAL PERPETUITY REQUIREMENTS Nancy A. McLaughlin* Property owners who make charitable gifts of perpetual conservation easements are eligible to claim federal charitable income tax deductions. Through this tax-incentive program the public is investing billions of dollars in easements encumbering millions of acres nationwide. In response to reports of abuse in the early 2000s, the Internal Revenue Service (Service) began auditing and litigating questionable easement donation transactions, and the resulting case law reveals significant failures to comply with the deduction’s requirements. Recently, the Service has come under fire for enforcing the deduction’s “perpetuity” requirements, which are intended to ensure that the easements will protect the subject properties’s conservation values in perpetuity and that the public’s investment in the easements will not be lost.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Misleading Statement Or Omission Under Rule 10B-5?
    Fordham Law Review Volume 42 Issue 2 Article 2 1973 What Is a Misleading Statement or Omission Under Rule 10b-5? Arnold S. Jacobs Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Arnold S. Jacobs, What Is a Misleading Statement or Omission Under Rule 10b-5? , 42 Fordham L. Rev. 243 (1973). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol42/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Is a Misleading Statement or Omission Under Rule 10b-5? Cover Page Footnote The author gratefully acknowledges the invaluable substantive suggestions of Ed Kaufmann and Fredric J. Klink, members of the New York Bar, the editorial aid of Ellen K. Jacobs and Ann S. Kheel, and the stenographic help of Mary Ann Assicurato. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol42/iss2/2 WHAT IS A MISLEADING STATEMENT OR OMISSION UNDER RULE 10b-5? ARNOLD S. JACOBS* TAs a or CoNTENTs I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 243 II. GE N an RuLas ............................................................ 246 i. SmcAL APPLICATioNS ...................................................... 260 A. Proxy Statements, Registration Statements, and Other Long Documents ...... 260 B. Financial Statements .................................................... 264 C. Intention and Promises ................................................. 267 D . M otive ................................................................ 274 E. Concealment, Disclosure, and Fairness .................................... 275 F.
    [Show full text]
  • Misrepresentation: the Restatement’S Second Mistake
    HOFFER.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/31/2014 2:04 PM MISREPRESENTATION: THE RESTATEMENT’S SECOND MISTAKE Stephanie R. Hoffer* The contract defenses of mistake and misrepresentation can be used to unravel deals as big as a corporate merger and as small as the sale of a used car. These two defenses, while conceptually distinct in theory, contain a significant amount of overlap in practice, causing courts to conflate the two legal standards. A misrepresentation of one party, when believed, results in a mistaken belief of the other, and both defenses address fundamental flaws in bargaining that throw the contracting parties’ consent into question. The coextensiveness of the defenses suggests that, absent an overriding normative justification, the legal test and remedy should be the same for each. Such a norma- tive justification exists only in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation which, unlike mistake or nonfraudulent misrepresentation, involves the intentional infliction of a dignitary harm. In such cases, punish- ment and deterrence are appropriate normative goals but neither are addressed by currently prevailing common law. Providing a single test for cases of misrepresentation and mistake with recourse to puni- tive damages in cases of fraud would harmonize the defenses with their normative underpinnings and eliminate inefficient redundancies in the common law. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 117 II. MISTAKE ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • When a Commercial Contract Doesn't Have a Force Majeure Clause
    April 24, 2020 WHEN A COMMERCIAL CONTRACT DOESN’T HAVE A FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE: COMMON LAW DEFENSES TO CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT To Our Clients and Friends: The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, and stringent government orders regulating the movement and gathering of people issued in response, continues to raise concerns about parties’ abilities to comply with contractual terms across a variety of industries. As discussed previously here, force majeure clauses may address parties’ obligations under such circumstances. Even without force majeure clauses, depending on the circumstances parties may seek to invalidate contracts or delay performance under the common law based on COVID-19. To assist in considering such issues, we have prepared the following overview. As the analysis of the applicability of any of the doctrines below is fact-specific and fact- intensive, this overview is intended only as a starting point. We encourage you to reach out to your Gibson Dunn contact to discuss specific questions or issues that may arise. Impossibility of Performance The doctrine of impossibility is available where performance of a contract is rendered objectively impossible.[1] In assessing whether impossibility of performance applies to your situation and your contract, it is useful first to determine whether the jurisdiction applicable to your contract or dispute has codified the doctrine. As in California, the statutory language might provide guidance to or place limitations on its applicability.[2] A party seeking to invoke the impossibility doctrine under common law must show that the impossibility was produced by an unanticipated event and the event could not have been foreseen or guarded against in the contract.[3] Courts have held that impossibility of performance during times of emergency or disaster has generally excused performance on the basis of governing law, governmental regulations, or the disruption of transportation or communication networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Contractual Impossibility and Frustration of Purpose in the Face of the COVID- 19 Epidemic by Lisa Bentley
    Contractual Impossibility and Frustration of Purpose in the Face of the COVID- 19 Epidemic By Lisa Bentley The outbreak of the global epidemic now known as COVID-19, which has come to be all too familiar to us in the past few weeks, is a story that has only just begun. As many of us watch this current health and economic calamity unfold, it is simply not clear at this point what the myriad of long-term effects of the virus will be on our world. As commercial litigators, however, one thing that we can realistically expect is that the performance of thousands of commercial contracts will be jeopardized. From cross-border contracts for the purchase and sale of goods, to lease agreements for retail space, to contracts for international mergers and acquisitions, to agreements for the use of event space, businesses are likely to be faced with the fact that performance if their commercial contracts is no longer possible, is extremely difficult, or just no longer makes any sense. Impossibility, Impracticality and Frustration of Purpose. When faced with such situations, businesses might look to the doctrines of contractual impossibility, or impracticality, or the related doctrine of frustration of purpose. While limited in their applicability, these doctrines are defenses that a contracting party may invoke to their performance obligations under a contract. The defense of impossibility, or impracticality, may be available when there is an unanticipated event that could not have been foreseen or guarded against in a contract.[1] Frustration of purpose
    [Show full text]