Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drafting a Fair Force Majeure Provision In the Wake of COVID-19
Now that we have endured more than one year of living in a pandemic, the question arises: how has it affected the manner in which commercial real estate transactions should be negotiated and documented? The negative impact on the already distressed retail and office markets is self-evident. There is little need to maintain a storefront if customers either cannot or will not shop there. The need for facetime in an office environment has proven to be over-stated. If a tenant's business is no longer viable for reasons beyond its control, how should that circumstance be addressed in a lease?
The term force majeure literally refers to a "superior force" — one that is "neither anticipated nor controlled." New Jersey Dept. of Envtl. Prot. v. Bayshore Reg'l Sewerage Auth., 340 N.J. Super. 166, 168 n.1 (App. Div. 2001). A force majeure clause provides a means by which contracting parties contemplate in advance certain uncontrollable events or effects that will render performance impracticable and conditions a party's obligation to perform upon the non-occurrence of such enumerated events. Thus, in drafting this common contractual term, at least some degree of anticipation is required.
While most commercial leases contain force majeure clauses, they are not often the subject of intense negotiations. Force majeure is typically defined to include acts beyond a party's reasonable control: inclement weather, strikes and labor shortages, governmental states of emergency, fire, flood or other casualty to name a few. Some clauses permit only the landlord to invoke an event of force majeure to excuse performance; others apply to both landlord and tenant and may be invoked to excuse performance of obligations other than the payment of rent. These are generally considered to be short-term events.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?