Skip to main content

Force Majeure and its Relevance during Covid-19 Lockdown

 The impact of COVID-19 is severe on domestic as well as international businesses across countries and sectors. The lockdown implemented by the government has restricted movement and has shut down operations of all the non-essential services resulting in businesses suffering due to supply chain disruptions. As a consequence, the performance of contracts is also being delayed and in some cases being cancelled. It is also possible that parties to these contracts may use this opportunity to delay or avoid their obligations on the grounds that the current lockdown situation has forced them to not perform the same. In light of this, it has become crucial to understand whether the Coronavirus outbreak can be considered as force majeure/Act of God or not, acting as a defence for non-performance of contractual obligations.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


What is Force Majeure?

The law relating to Force Majeure (a French phrase that means a ‘superior force’) is embodied under Sections 32 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is a contractual provision agreed upon between the parties. The occurrence of a force majeure event protects a party from liability for its failure to perform a contractual obligation.

 


What does Force Majeure include?

Typically, force majeure events include an Act of God or natural disasters, war or war-like situations, labour unrest or strikes, epidemics, etc. The intention of a force majeure clause is to save the performing party from consequences of something over which it has no control. Force Majeure is an exception to what would otherwise amount to a breach of contract. Whether a particular contractual obligation can be avoided would however depend upon the factual analysis. The courts would examine, whether in a given case, the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic prevented the party from performing its contractual obligation. Indian courts have generally recognised this concept and have enforced it where appropriate.

 


Can one take defence under Force Majeure for not performing its contractual obligations during lockdown?

Due to the supply chain disruptions caused by the lockdown, it is likely that the performances under many contracts will be delayed, interrupted or even cancelled. Parties to a contract may seek to delay or avoid their responsibilities under the contract, either because the lockdown has legitimately prevented them from performing their contractual obligations, or because they are seeking to use it as an excuse to free themselves from an unfavorable deal. They may also cite COVID-19 as a basis for renegotiation of the cost or other key contractual provisions. This is why it is important to determine whether COVID-19 will be considered as a ‘Force Majeure’ event.


In India, the Department of Expenditure, Procurement Policy Division, Ministry of Finance issued an Office Memorandum on February 19, 2020, in relation to the government’s ‘Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017’, which serves as a guideline for procurement by the government. In the Memorandum, the ministry has stated that the COVID-19 outbreak could be covered by a force majeure clause on the basis that it is a natural calamity. Therefore, parties to a contract can take defence under force majeure for not performing their contractual obligations during lockdown.


Consult: Top Corporate Lawyers in India

 


Whether contractual obligations can be excused during a health crisis such as Coronavirus outbreak?

Some of the contracts contain provisions stating that it can be put on hold until the force majeure event is resolved. Moreover, some contracts also provide for limitations in time after which either party may cancel the agreement with written notice to the other. However, if a contract does not contain provisions especially stating any of these situations, the contract will remain in effect until the force majeure event is resolved.



 


What if a contract does not have a Force Majeure clause?

Sometimes, the performance of a contract is possible when the contract is made but becomes impossible or unlawful upon happening of an event which could not have been prevented. This phenomenon is referred to as the ‘Doctrine of Frustration’. Therefore, in case the contract does not include a force majeure clause, the parties who are unable to carry out their contractual obligations can ask for relief under the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

 


Can individual contract terms affect the defence under Force Majeure?

Force Majeure scenarios are very sensitive and depend highly upon the terms laid down in the contract. It is essential to look into the terms of the contract and the requirements of such a clause when a party is looking to invoke the force majeure clause of the contract or to seek protection under the doctrine of frustration. In order to defer or terminate its obligations parties may also attempt to take shelter under other clauses of the agreement such as price adjustment clause, material adverse change clause, and limitation or exclusion clause, in order to limit or exclude liability for not performing its contractual obligations. However, whether a party can take shelter under these clauses or not, would depend upon the terms as laid down under the contract.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


How can a lawyer help?

Looking at the complexity of the issue, it is highly impossible for a layman to understand the technicalities involved in the issue. Interpretation of terms of a contract in accordance with the law is in itself a very technical task and beyond the scope of expertise of a layman. This is why it is imperative in times like these to have a corporate lawyer by your side who can help you understand the technicalities involved and can formulate the right strategies to ensure the desired result in contract-related litigation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree