Some thoughts on practical application of Force Majeure clauses.
Force majeure clauses
are frequently seen in shipbuilding [1] and other contracts. Recent attempts by
parties to invoke economic crisis as a force majeure events excusing
performance has met with little success.
In Tandrin Aviation
Holdings Limited v Aero Toy Store LLC and others [2], the court held at
paragraph 40 “…under English
law that a change in economic / market circumstances, affecting the
profitability of a contract or the ease with which the parties’ obligations can
be performed, is not regarded as being a force majeure event. Thus a
failure of performance due to the provision of insufficient financial resources
has been held not to amount to force majeure - see The Concadoro [1916] AC 2 AC 199; and likewise a rise in
cost or expense - see Brauer
& Co. (GB) Ltd. v. James Clark (Brush Materials) Ltd. [1952]
2 All ER 497 and generally the discussion in Chitty on Contract, 30th
Ed., para 14-148.”
Adams on Contract
Drafting [3] states inter alia: “Thus
far, courts continue to resist applying this contractual provision to even the
most severe economic events. Nevertheless, courts have indicated a willingness
to consider recessions as force majeure events if the parties intended such
events to be covered by their contracts.”
It seems that the
court’s interpretation of majeure clauses remains as usual, narrowly, with
focus on actual contractual language.
There have also been various suggestions by distinguished professionals on how to draft and include economic crisis as a permissible delay or force majeure event in contractual documents.
In practice, the
problem is two-fold; clarity and getting the other party to accept such
language.
[1] Clause 34, Bimco
NEWBUILDCON, Article IX, Norwegian Standard Form SBC, Article 6, AWES Form,
Article VIII, SAJ Form.
[2] [2010] EWHC 40
(Comm)
Comments