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

Empowering Businesses: Virtual Corporate Law Services

  Empowering Businesses: Virtual Corporate Law Services In the dynamic world of business, legal support is crucial to ensure smooth operations, mitigate risks, and navigate regulatory landscapes. Lexis and Company offers Virtual Corporate Law Services to businesses in the UK, USA, Canada, Singapore, Dubai, and Australia , assisting with mergers, acquisitions, business contracts, compliance, and corporate governance. Key Features of Virtual Corporate Law Services 1. Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) Legal Support We provide comprehensive legal services for mergers and acquisitions , including due diligence, structuring deals, drafting agreements, and navigating regulatory approvals. Benefits: Ensures smooth and legally sound M&A transactions. Minimizes risks during corporate restructuring. Protects your business interests in high-value deals. Trending Hashtags: #MergersAndAcquisitions #BusinessDeals #CorporateLaw #LegalSupport #VirtualLegalExperts 2. Business Contracts and Ag...

Concept of constitutionalism

  Concept of constitutionalism Who Started Constitutionalism? John Locke - The English Bill of Rights is a foundational constitutional document that helped inspire the American Bill of Rights. Political theorist  John Locke  played a huge role in cementing the philosophy of constitutionalism.  Constitution is a written law which describes the structure of Government, the rules according to which the Govt. must work and the boundaries within which the Govt. must work. Constitutionalism   can be defined as the doctrine that governs the legitimacy of government action, and it implies something far more important than the idea of legality that requires official conduct to be in accordance with pre-fixed legal rules. Constitution constitution is the document that contains the basic and fundamental law of the nation, setting out the organization of the government and the principles of the society. Basic norm (or law) of the state; System of integration and organi...

Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43

 Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43 CITATION AIR 1966 SC 43 COURT Supreme Court of India JUDGES/CORAM Justice K.S. Shah and Justice R. Bachawat DATE OF JUDGEMENT 22.03.1965 Facts: The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant was a dealer in a food grains at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh prosecuted in the Court of Additional District Magistrate for possessing in stock maunds and 21/4 seers of wheat for the purpose of sale without license. Subsequently appellant was charged for committing an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thereafter the appellant pleaded there was no intention to contravene any provisions of the law and the grains were stored upon filing an application for license and upon believe that it will be issued to him. The appellant further stated that he continued to submit returns on the food grains stored and purchased to the respected authority. Thus, the appellant was acquitted in the Court of Additional District Magistra...