Editor’s Note: Airbus, Boeing and Embraer and other OEMs face requests for deferrals and perhaps cancellations of orders as a result of COVID-19. In addition, Boeing now faces cancellation requests for the 737 MAX grounding, now in its 13th month. While Boeing’s contracts generally allow Boeing or the customer to cancel the order after the 12th month, the COVID crisis raises a new element: canceling by Force Majeure and something called the Doctrine of Frustration.
The following analysis appeared March 12, 2020, on the website of the law firm Shearman & Sterling law firm. The authors are listed at the end of this article. It is reprinted here with permission.
Following the rapid spread of the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) that was first reported in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic on March 11, 2020.
In this note, we consider how force majeure provisions in commercial contracts and the related common law doctrine of frustration may be engaged in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. While this analysis focuses primarily on the position under English law, we have included a PRC law perspective because of the significant impact COVID-19 has had on business in China. We also suggest steps that parties may take to safeguard their positions in view of the evolving situation.
A force majeure event refers to the occurrence of an event which is outside the reasonable control of a party and which prevents that party from performing its obligations under a contract. English common law has no general concept of force majeure (save for the limited doctrine of contractual frustration, which is addressed below). A party’s ability to claim relief for a force majeure event therefore depends upon the terms of the contract, and the force majeure provision in particular. Force majeure provisions are express terms and will not ordinarily be implied into contracts governed by English law.
A party affected by such an event of force majeure will typically be relieved from performing the obligation affected for the duration and to the extent affected and may be entitled to compensation.
As with all matters dependent upon the terms of the contract, each force majeure provision must necessarily be considered on its precise terms and in its specific context. There are nonetheless some features common to most force majeure provisions, which we consider below.
The “test” for force majeure usually requires the satisfaction of three distinct criteria:
These criteria will be considered in turn.
It is common to see force majeure events split into two categories which set out a specific list of events which are deemed to be events of force majeure: political force majeure, which deal with risks related to changes in the political or legal environments and non-political force majeure (or natural force majeure), which deal with physical risks that might impact a business or a project. These different categories often provide different remedies—an extension of time and increased costs (for cases of political force majeure) or an extension of the time for completion and relief from termination (for cases of natural force majeure).
Many contractual provisions set out a specific list of force majeure events which are deemed to be events of force majeure beyond the control of the parties, such as “pandemics,” “epidemics” or “diseases.” A specific reference to a “pandemic” will make it easier to bring a force majeure claim but will still require the other criteria for a force majeure test to be satisfied.
However, if the provision does not include language to that effect, then it will be necessary to consider whether COVID-19, or its impact on a business or a project, is captured by a different concept, such as an “Act of God,” “action by government” or a catch-all provision. Most force majeure provisions contain “catch-all” language in respect of events which are “outside the reasonable control of the party affected”. It seems fairly clear that a pandemic such as COVID-19 would qualify as force majeure under such a provision.
It is important to bear in mind however that the relevant force majeure event need not be COVID-19 itself. It is the consequences of COVID-19 and its impact upon the ability of the affected party to fulfil its contractual obligations that will be relevant.
The second criterion will be affected by the degree of impairment of the affected party’s ability to perform its contractual obligations required to trigger the operation of the force majeure provision. A force majeure provision typically relieves a party from what would otherwise be a breach of contract—i.e. its failure to perform an obligation due to the effects of the event of force majeure in question. The party must establish the causal link between the event and its inability to perform. A provision that requires a party to be “prevented” by the force majeure event from performing its obligations will likely be more difficult to rely upon than one which only requires the party to be “impeded” or “hindered” in the performance of its obligations.
A highly likely scenario with COVID-19 would be the inability to perform a contract due to having to self-isolate an office or a team due to the outbreak of COVID-19 at the workplace. Under many force majeure clauses, this would likely have the necessary impact and causal link to qualify as a force majeure event, subject to the party affected having taken all reasonable measures. A disruption that merely impacts the profitability of a contract may not be sufficient for a force majeure claim unless there is express contractual provision for such a situation. Nor would an economic downturn or other general adverse business conditions likely be sufficient, even if it could clearly be shown that a key trigger for the downturn was COVID-19.
Finally, a party seeking to rely upon a force majeure provision will usually have to show that it has taken reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate the event and its consequence, and that there are no alternate means for performing under the contract. What constitutes a reasonable mitigation measure is fact-specific and depends upon the nature and subject matter of the contract in question.
For example, a supplier could consider using alternative manufacturing lines in a different location, or a project owner could seek alternative suppliers. However, the reasonableness of a mitigation measure will be considered in light of any additional burdens and costs that the party incurs, as well as availability of alternative manufacturing lines and suppliers at that time and the overall impact of any delays that a mitigation measure could have upon the project schedule.
Given the continued impact that the spread of COVID-19 is having upon global businesses, it is possible that there may be fewer mitigation measures available to parties than in other potential events of force majeure. However, it will be important for employers to follow all relevant official guidelines and to consider all reasonable measures to contain or limit the spread of the virus in the workplace so as to allow contractual performance to continue. Short-term measures such as home-working may be necessary.
Typically, the affected party’s right to relief for force majeure under the contract will be conditional upon the issuance of a notice by it to the other party, supported by the required evidence. The contract may additionally require the notice to state the anticipated consequences and duration of the force majeure event. Some contracts, especially construction contracts, include a “time-bar” clause that requires notice to be provided within a specified period from when the affected party first became aware of the force majeure event, failure of which will result in a loss of entitlement to claim.
Unlike a one-off event such as natural disaster, which is usually limited in time and confined to a particular geographical locale, the COVID-19 outbreak has been dynamic and has been characterized by its ability to proliferate rapidly and unexpectedly across multiple countries and geographical regions. Parties have therefore adopted the approach of issuing “protective” or “rolling” force majeure notices that take into account the developing impact that the COVID-19 outbreak has upon the performance of their obligations under the contract.
The consequences for the parties where a valid force majeure event has occurred will depend on the nature of the affected party’s obligations under the contract, as well as the consequences and remedies expressly contemplated by the force majeure provision.
Contractual remedies for force majeure typically include an extension of time to perform those obligations or suspension of contractual performance for the duration of the force majeure event. If the force majeure event extends over a longer period, some provisions may entitle the parties to terminate the contract.
In the absence of an express force majeure provision within an English law contract, parties may be able to rely upon the doctrine of frustration. By contrast, the doctrine of frustration is not available if the contract contains an express force majeure provision, since the provision will be regarded as the agreed allocation of risk between the parties.
The doctrine of frustration will apply if:
The doctrine of frustration results in the contract automatically coming to an end. The parties to the contract will no longer be bound to perform their future obligations. Because of the dramatic consequences contractual frustration, the threshold for proving frustration is much higher than that for most force majeure provisions, since it must be shown that the obligations impacted by the event or circumstance are fundamental to the contract.
Some contracts may also contain a “change in law” provision, which addresses circumstances where there has been a change in law that makes it impossible for the party to perform its contractual obligations. As a result, parties may incur increased costs to reimburse the affected parties, and in some cases, the right to terminate the contact. Given the continued global spread of the outbreak, it is possible that laws may be passed in order to contain the spread of the virus, but which also prevent that party from performing its contractual obligations (eg, travel restrictions or nationwide quarantine and self-isolation measures, as recently implemented across Italy). A party’s entitlement to remedies will depend upon the scope of a “change in law” provision.
In addition to the position under English law, we briefly consider the position under PRC law in view of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in China.
Under PRC General Provisions of the Civil Law (promulgated in March 2017), force majeure is generally recognized as an excuse for not performing civil obligations. If a contract does not include a force majeure provision, it will be implied. If a contract includes a force majeure provision, a party can rely on the force majeure provision or resort to the protection offered by the general law if the scope of the contractual remedy is considered to be limited. To be eligible for force majeure protection under PRC law, the affected party must demonstrate that the relevant situation is unforeseeable, unavoidable and cannot be overcome, and also that it is the cause of the affected party’s inability to perform its obligations.
The China Council for The Promotion of International Trade has been issuing force majeure certificates to companies that claim they are unable to meet their contractual obligations to protect them from potential breach of contract claims by counterparties. These certificates would not automatically satisfy the “test” for force majeure for a contract governed by English, PRC or another law; these certificates would at best provide evidentiary support for the affected party’s force majeure claim, but the specific requirements of the force majeure provision must still be satisfied.
We understand that there is pressure on the China International Trade Commission to stop issuing force majeure certificates for companies as the Chinese Government is keen to revive the economy as soon as possible. State-owned enterprises have been instructed to resume operations and recall all employees back to work. While these orders may be resisted in some instances, it is widely thought that without governmental support, there will likely be fewer force majeure claims made by Chinese companies.
In order to be prepared for different scenarios as the situation continues to unfold, we recommend that clients consider taking the following proactive steps.
The authors and contributors from Shearman & Sterling are Iain Elder, Nicholas Buckworth, Ben Shorten, Xiaogang (Sean) Wang, Daryl Chew, Jonathan Swil and Danielle Altink.
In addition, it is important to address specific jurisdictions and Civil Law.
I presume that in contracts signed by purchasers with Boeing, Airbus and Embraer it is the OEMs that choose the jurisdiction.
So for Boeing we need to look at provisions and the way force majeure is handled specifically in the state used for the contract and, given their legalistic approach to lots of things, I presume they’ve chosen the state that affords them the most financial and legal advantage. Delaware?
For Airbus, I presume contracts are signed in France under French Civil Law.
A brief overview I looked at that specifically addresses jurisdictional differences is at https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication-listing/coronavirus-force-majeure-or-frustration. In French law the “unforeseeable at time of signing of the contract” part strikes me (as a non legal person) as a difficult one. I can see it being reasonable to claim that no one could have foreseen the precise timing and scale of a pandemic but unreasonable to claim a serious pandemic was unforseeable. It has been talked about enough times, it is even a staple of blockbuster movies. It was not a zero chance event.
Beyond that are the differences when lessors are the buyers as we don’t have straightforward Privity Of Contract (Common Law) between manufacturer and operator.
And do larger buyers get “better” contracts (eg able to insert stronger force majeure terms) than smaller buyers?
FM cuts both ways.
Airlines can equally cite it, net sum zero as all parties are affected.
Airlines are more affected.
Boeing and Airbus (Embraer no on their league) would work it out with their prospective customers as best as they can.
Many will simply cease functioning and you can’t get a dead horse to pay up.
Others will go bankrupt and resume ops (all contracts cancelled)
Those who do not will work it out with A or B.
While I lot will return to normal quickly airline travel is not one of them.
International contracts usually nominate a neutral country, something like: “this agreement is made under the laws of the United Kingdom and disputes involving this agreement are to be litigated in UK courts,” I can’t remember the exact wording but something like that. UK is very popular, which I imagine is why Leeham are quoting it. I don’t know about AB or BA but I doubt in non US or EU airlines would accept negociations under EU or US law.
I was curious if there were any cases to look at to see if Airbus and Boeing do indeed use a neutral country (which the UK of course wouldn’t be for Airbus). Did a quick Google of “airbus order cancelled legal case” and the stand out hit on page 1 was a PDF at the Airbus website stating “Standard terms and conditions…”. So I opened that and had a look for jurisdiction and it states French law will be used. Immediately after that I saw “proprietary and confidential” and 2018 in the footer so I closed the PDF.
Can Boeing show that they could start delivering 737MAX to customers in absence of the corona lockdown?
The (re)certification issues stem from well before the crisis and remain _unchanged_ !
A very good point Uwe, as the FAA, and other authorities have not yet re-certified the MAX, I think it would be hard to demonstrate the ability to provide the customer with their goods. I would expect MAX customers to keep their legal powder dry until the aircraft are cleared to fly, and they have been given a specific delivery date.
I have seen posts saying a few more software issues are to be addressed, not sure if these are new, or just delayed, or re-reporting of existing issues. In the last few weeks the 737-7 test aircraft has been in the air, but I don’t think they are certification flights.
Technically the built aircraft are out of delivery compliance .
New built ones would not be and would meet down stream delivery obligations.
Reality is they will negotiate it out.
“New built ones would meet down stream delivery obligations. ”
Not the case.
No certified fix available.
So just now Boeing can’t build delivery compliant frames. ( and nothing in the news about that changing RSN.)
Lots of words to say that a pandemic like this is a force majeure.
Yes, but then what? Uncharted territories – there are no general rules or measures other then common sense to adapt contracts.
From the other hand, both sides of contracts are in the airline industry which is fragile itself and susceptible to outside factors, which have to be forseen for far future. No simple papal dispensation.
The first two questions that comes to my mind are:
— How many airlines will try to invoke force majeure to get out of their 737MAX orders?
— Will COVID-19 trigger the beginning of the end for the 737MAX?
If Boeing is only a few months late in delivery to some customers who signed up for delivery slots (after expected recertification in June 2020 or so) Boeing might be able to argue that force majeure in the form of the Pandemic made it unable to execute its contract in a timely manner (rather than the grounding) and avoid some of the penalties, including cancellation, associated with late delivery. Applicable if Boeing is only a few months over the 1 year cancellation limit and the late execution was clearly caused by the pandemic rather than grounding. If a customer refuses delivery because they are no longer able to pay the final payments due to business down turn caused by the pandemic can they argue force majeure to get their deposit back?
One issue will be what happens to the bank guarantees.
A bank guarantee is when a lending institution promises to cover a loss if a borrower defaults on a loan, of which there are many examples.
Individuals often choose direct guarantees for international and cross-border transactions.
A bank guarantee enables the customer, or debtor, to acquire goods, buy equipment or draw down a loan.
Understanding Bank Guarantees
A bank guarantee is when a lending institution promises to cover a loss if a borrower defaults on a loan. The guarantee lets a company buy what it otherwise could not, helping business growth and promoting entrepreneurial activity.
There are different kinds of bank guarantees, including direct and indirect guarantees. Banks typically use direct guarantees in foreign or domestic business, issued directly to the beneficiary. Direct guarantees apply when the bank’s security “
Wrong side action assumed.
_Boeing_ will invoke “force majeure”.
Airlines have a rational reason to cancel on contract grounds.
Boeing will try to fend off order losses by way of arguing for “force majeure” and that customers have to stay with their orders. That Boeing still does not have even an inkling of a solution on their hands will be pushed aside.
( We love lawyers, don’t we? )
Ouch! Another 69 fewer MAX aircraft that Boeing need to build after the 150 737 MAX cancellations announced for March.
In a tweet scott said ” “Some of the aid in the stimulus package also requires companies to maintain at least 90% of their current workforce until Sept. 30.” $BA considers cutting workforce 10%: news reports.”
Logical question – does management count as ‘ workforce ‘ .. or does only hourly – non contract or salaried – count as workforce. ?