Commercial Relationships Will Be Tested by Covid-19
The impact of the coronavirus includes a major wave of significant commercial disputes. We are experiencing a worldwide health and business crisis where the world's economy, including general industry and business relationships at all levels, are being severely roiled by COVID-19.
March 26, 2020 at 09:43 AM
4 minute read
The impact of the coronavirus includes a major wave of significant commercial disputes. We are experiencing a worldwide health and business crisis where the world's economy, including general industry and business relationships at all levels, are being severely roiled by COVID-19. Contractual liability principles and our court system will be tested by coronavirus well into its aftermath.
By this stage of the novel coronavirus pandemic, businesses and legal practitioners should have scrutinized their contractual force majeure clauses (or a lack thereof). Whether COVID-19 qualifies as a force majeure event will usually depend on the language of the contract. A force majeure clause excuses performance of contractual obligations upon the occurrence of an unforeseen circumstance—and whether COVID-19's effects on performance will relieve a party of its obligations goes to the plain language of a contract.
Thus far, the troubles caused by COVID-19 for the travel, hospitality and entertainment industries are well known. Major American venues have been shuttered; elsewhere, Dubai's Emaar Properties declared a force majeure event to halt bookings at three hotels for more than five months beginning on March 15. Until the pandemic is contained, the list of relationships that will be strained and tested by COVID-19 is growing in real-time and all participants in our global economy are at risk.
According to international reporting, PetroChina, China's top gas producer and piped gas supplier has issued force majeure notices to avoid gas supply obligations—because the demands on gas supply have changed due to the virus. In the National Basketball Association, for instance, contract terms might be invoked to avoid guaranteed salary obligations leading to a very public collective bargaining dispute. Until the pandemic is contained, anyone can face contractual performance and liability problems because of interruptions caused by COVID-19.
All contracting parties should determine whether COVID-19 qualifies as a force majeure performance excuse under the contract, and review other requirements for providing notice of nonperformance under the contract or alternative means of performance. If a contract is silent as to a force majeure event, related legal doctrines governing the frustration of impossibility of performance could be available.
Parties should review their commercial contracts to determine:
- What is the contractual mechanism for declaring a force majeure event?
- When must notice of a potential delay or nonperformance be provided? If the contract is silent on notice, a notice of any delays or nonperformance should be provided as soon as possible.
- Does the contract provide for opportunities to extend or cure performance?
- Does it contemplate the exchange or recovery of additional consideration?
- What should a party do to mitigate its damages All parties to a contract must take reasonable steps under the circumstances to mitigate their potential damages, including securing alternative performance or seeking to avoid other obligations.
Indeed, given the global interrelationships in worldwide commerce, COVID-19's effects will be extraordinarily complex if the pandemic is not curbed as soon as possible. This is largely unprecedented territory for our courts tasked with evaluating reasonable commercial decisions in the wake of an unprecedented health crisis. In the wake of the Great Recession, legal precedent shows that American courts generally declined to apply a force majeure clause when governmental action affected the profitability of a contract, as opposed to precluding a party's performance. Market fluctuations and impacts on economic feasibility have generally been found by numerous American courts to not constitute a force majeure event depending on the terms of the underlying contract.
However, presently, COVID-19 demands that we shelter in place and is requiring an extraordinary governmental response on a worldwide scale. Expect parties to push beyond force majeure clauses with the growing number of business disagreements.
Individuals and businesses should be mindful of the importance of maintaining valuable business relationships—especially during and after uncertain times. Crisis demands a careful response and competent counsel because where performance interruptions occur, the expectations of contracting parties are frustrated, and disputes ensue. This is our new reality.
Alejandro Miyar is an associate at Berger Singerman in Miami.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250