Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

International Sales Contracts - COVID-19 Pandemic and Force Majeure

Client Alert
December 11, 2020

Q: What is force majeure in the context of a contract?

A: Generally speaking, a force majeure clause is a contract provision that relieves a party from performing its contractual obligations when certain circumstances beyond its control arise, making performance inadvisable, commercially impracticable, illegal, or impossible.

Q: If a party enters into an international commercial contract and the COVID-19 pandemic has prevented or delayed performance by such party, is such party excused from performing?

A: It depends. Does the contract for sale of goods stipulate that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) is the determinative governing law, or, by default the CISG governs?

The CISG generally applies if the parties to a contract are from different signatory countries (unless the parties expressly waive its applicability), or when private international law provisions default to the CISG. The United States is a signatory country to the CISG.  Specifically, CISG Article 79 provides that “[a] party is not liable for a failure to perform any of his obligations if he proves that the failure was due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it, or its consequences.” The treatment of impediment under the CISG is different from the treatment under common law (see below). Generally, four conditions must be satisfied in order for a party to assert the force majeure protection under the CISG. First, the impediment must be beyond the party’s control. Secondly, the impediment is unforeseeable at the time the contract was signed (thus, a party probably would not prevail in court if it enters into a contract today and claims that it cannot perform under the contract due to the COVID-19 pandemic). Thirdly, the impediment and its consequences could not be reasonably avoided or overcome. Lastly, the non-performance of the party is the result of the impediment.  

Q: What if the contract does not contain an express force majeure clause or the CISG does not apply to the contract?

A: Consider other options under U.S. law to excuse non-performance.

Under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) (Section 2-615), a seller may be excused from delay or non-delivery of the goods if performance “has been made impracticable” by either (i) the occurrence of an event “the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made” or (ii) good faith compliance with foreign or domestic government regulation. Can the COVID-19 pandemic and/or compliance with the governmental health orders be used to excuse performance under the UCC? Perhaps, but analysis should be done on a case by case basis.

The common law doctrines of “frustration” and “impossibility” may be invoked, but they have higher thresholds to overcome. Additionally, states in the U.S. apply different treatments of these concepts.

Some jurisdictions focus on whether the impossibility of performance was foreseeable at the time the contract was entered. Additionally, the contract must be consummated based on the assumption that the event (which rendered performance impossible) would not occur. Some states expand the impossibility defense to include the doctrine of impracticability (see the UCC discussion above).

The doctrine of “frustration of purpose” generally provides where the breaching party finds that the purposes for which it bargained have been frustrated to the extent that the breaching party is not receiving the benefit of the bargain for which it contracted; i.e., the frustration destroyed the purpose of the contract. Some jurisdictions also require that an event resulting in such frustration of purpose is unforeseeable and beyond the parties’ control.

If you have any questions about force majeure, please contact Robert Q. Lee at rqlee@bmdpl.com or 407.232.6881.

COVID-19force majeureRobert Q. LeeInternational Law
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts