Does COVID-19 Make Contracts Unenforceable? It Depends
Because a force majeure event must make contract performance impossible, economic downturns, adverse business conditions, new burdens and profitability issues are generally insufficient.
April 08, 2020 at 02:23 PM
5 minute read
In the coronavirus pandemic, a number of legal concepts such as force majeure, impossibility of performance, impracticability and frustration of purpose may come in to play in determining whether performance under a contract may be excused or delayed and what remedies may be available.
Many contracts contain force majeure provisions, which potentially limit the liability of a contracting party for nonperformance of contractual obligations upon the occurrence of a force majeure event — an event that is not reasonably foreseeable and beyond the control of the contracting parties (e.g., fires, floods, strikes, material or labor restrictions by any governmental authority, unusual transportation delays).
A successful invocation of a force majeure provision under Florida law depends on the following factors: the event was not reasonably foreseeable and beyond a party's reasonable control, the event materially affected the ability to perform contractual obligations, and all reasonable steps were taken to provide notice and avoid or mitigate the event or its consequences.
If a force majeure provision is successfully invoked, the invoking party will typically be relieved from performance for the duration affected or performance entirely, and may also be entitled to other relief.
Whether the event was not reasonably foreseeable and beyond a party's control depends on the specific language of the force majeure provision. In most cases, force majeure provisions contain a specific list of force majeure events.
However, some force majeure provisions do not contain specific lists of events and instead contain generic catch-all language such as national emergencies, acts of God, governmental actions or regulations or actions beyond the control of the parties.
If a force majeure provision specifically lists pandemics, epidemics or disease, COVID-19 would likely fall under one of those categories. Even if such language is not used or if catch-all language is used instead, COVID-19 may still qualify as a force majeure event. Due to the highly fact-specific nature of these cases, provisions must be individually evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Whether COVID-19 materially affected performance of contractual obligations depends on whether there was a causal link between COVID-19 or its effects and the nonperforming party's inability to perform. The express language of the force majeure provision will provide the circumstances upon which performance will be excused or delayed, such as a party's performance will be excused if performance is impeded, hindered,prevented or interfered with.
Most provisions require the nonperforming party to provide the other party or parties with notice of the force majeure event. Some provisions even contain detailed procedures and time limitations for giving notice.
Providing notice, however, may not be enough to evade liability. Even if notice has been provided, a nonperforming party may still be liable for failure to mitigate the harm caused by nonperformance. The extent of the mitigation requirement is fact specific and will depend on the language, applicable state law and relevant facts.
Impossibility of Performance
In the absence of a force majeure provision or as an alternative, a contracting party may be excused from performance of contractual obligations by claiming impossibility of performance. Impossibility of performance arises where the purpose of the contract has become impossible to perform. Notably, impossibility generally does not apply where the relevant event was foreseeable at the time the contract was made because under such circumstances, the event could have been provided for in the contract.
Impracticability
In the absence of a force majeure provision or as an alternative, a contracting party may be excused from performance by claiming impracticability. Impracticability arises upon the occurrence of an event that was unforeseeable and not caused by any fault of the party expected to perform when the non-occurrence of the event was the basic assumption on which the contract was made. If a party's performance is rendered impracticable, that party's duty to perform is discharged so long as the language of the contract or the factual circumstances of the case do not indicate otherwise.
Frustration of Purpose
If the relevant contract does not contain a force majeure provision, a contracting party may have a defense under the doctrine of frustration of purpose so long as the party is able to demonstrate that the event or circumstance occurred after the formation of the contract, the event was not caused by any party to the contract, the event was unforeseen by the parties, and it is physically or commercially impossible to fulfill the contract or the obligation to perform has been drastically transformed from the obligation initially undertaken. If these elements are established, the contract will terminate, releasing the parties from any future obligations under the contract.
Other Potential Remedies
Other contractual provisions may provide relief to contracting parties as may changes to the law which suspend or discontinue an obligation under an existing contract. Numerous government orders, laws and rules have been implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Such changes in the law may impact the rights and liabilities of contracting parties as well as businesses in general and may provide additional rights and remedies. Analysis of such matters is a fact-intensive process that requires an overview of all contractual provisions and applicable law.
Peter F. Valori is the managing partner of Damian & Valori|Culmo Trial Attorneys in Miami. Valori focuses his practice on business litigation with a particular emphasis on complex corporate, contract, real estate, employment, professional negligence and trademark litigation. Morgan J. Levine is a law clerk at the firm.
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 AllMorgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
6 minute readLost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
7 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 2Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 3Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
- 4Manufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
- 5Waterbury Jury Awards $2 Million Verdict Against Eversource
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