Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Force Majeure Clauses In Construction Contracts In the Aftermath of COVID-19
Not long ago, force majeure clauses were often afterthoughts in construction contracts, referring in various ways to potential, unforeseeable and uncontrollable catastrophes, each in one mind's eye as unlikely to then happen as not. After the fact, parties attempted to shoehorn this untested defense to have it apply to a wide range of events — natural and some unnatural. Then came 2020, and with it a new opportunity to put forward a fresh spin on the traditional "force majeure" concept as COVID-19, along with the attendant governmental shutdowns and other actions, brought havoc and uncertainty to the industry. We are only beginning to scratch the surface of the effect on the construction litigation visited on us by COVID-19-related impacts. However, the pandemic and its continuing impact has reinforced the importance of planning for the unexpected — and undefined — when negotiating construction contracts, perhaps even where there is no express force majeure clause to which to point.
Origins of Force Majeure
Force majeure, and related common law doctrines, trace back to Roman law, which used the term vis major, and held "possibility" to be the limit of all obligations. By 1883, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted force majeure principles when, in The Tornado, 18 U.S. 342, it absolved the owner of a cargo ship from its contractual obligation to deliver freight after the ship was rendered unseaworthy by accidental fire. Though these principles were initially read into contracts that did not explicitly contain "force majeure" clauses, eventually parties began incorporating specific provisions in their agreements in an effort to control the bases for and consequences of excusing performance in certain situations. We are at that point again.
Early Epidemic-Related Application
The COVID-19 pandemic is new, but wars, floods and even other epidemics have impacted contracts over the years. While there may be other incidents, it would appear cases going back to the 1800s refer to contracting parties' requests to be excused from performance due to widespread disease. In reaching their conclusions, courts generally considered these past epidemics to excuse performance as a matter of equity. See, e.g., Sumner v. Philadelphia, 23 F. Cas. 392, 397 (3d Cir. 1873) (finding "disease must … be viewed in law as the act of God" and holding the city of Philadelphia liable for equitable damages due to compulsory quarantine of a cargo ship infected with yellow fever).
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.
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.
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.
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?