Opening Business During 'Act of God' Could Block Its Protection
So long as a business is closed, they have leverage to work out solutions with lenders and landlords alike.
April 22, 2020 at 06:19 PM
4 minute read
At this point in the pandemic, every attorney has taken a refresher in contracts law regarding force majeure, whether for our clients or for our own sake. Generally speaking, a force majeure provision allows parties to delay, suspend or terminate an agreement due to circumstances beyond either party's controls. When COVID-19 struck, there were people pontificating whether a pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event if it's not specifically stated in a provision. With the wide array of government orders, travel restrictions and the like, it is hard to make a good faith argument that COVID-19 is not a force majeure event.
A good percentage of lawyers will be hired to argue that COVID-19 does not trigger force majeure, especially when it relates to making payments. Additionally, many agreements between parties are either oral or do not include a force majeure clause. Where there is not a force majeure clause or it is inadequate for the situation, Georgia has a longstanding "Act of God" statute that provides:
"If performance of the terms of a contract becomes impossible as a result of an act of God, such impossibility shall excuse nonperformance, except where, by proper prudence, such impossibility might have been avoided by the promisor." O.C.G.A. § 13-4-21 (2010)
The Georgia Court of Appeals has provided that an act of God for purposes of excusing performance of a contract is an "event in nature so extraordinary that the history of climatic variations and other conditions in the particular locality affords no reasonable warning of them." Sampson v. General Electric Supply Corp. 78 Ga.App. 2 (1948).
COVID-19 is unprecedented in our lifetimes. Not only is the virus novel, the response is extraordinary. Planes are parked in the desert because travel restrictions have brought them to a halt. Images of cities from around the world during rush hour show the ghost towns they have become as people shelter in place as much as possible. Other than essential businesses such as hospitals and grocery stores, the world has come to a stop. COVID-19, and the response to it, are extraordinary acts of nature.
However, Gov. Brian Kemp has issued an executive order that will allow nonessential businesses to reopen as early as Friday, April 24. The state does not comply with federal benchmarks for reopening, according to the Washington Post's Phillip Bump. Regardless, the governor is telling the world that Georgia is open for business while everywhere else remains closed.
The financial impact of opening businesses will be as negative as keeping them closed, if not more so, due to exposure to additional liability. Businesses will have to absorb the extra expenses required to comply with the executive order. Additionally, they will have to comply with the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, or FFCRA, when they bring employees back to work, which requires sick pay and paid leave for employees dealing with COVID-19 issues such as lack of childcare or being sick.
Significantly, a business that opens needs customers and clients to support their efforts. A recent poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal found that 60% of Americans support the stay-at-home orders to stop the spread of COVID-19. A business that reopens will not be able to survive financially if they only serve 40% or fewer of the customers they historically have served.
Currently, parties to agreements for everything from the supply of goods, movies productions and real property transactions are cooperating to find solutions to the impact COVID-19 is having. So long as a business is closed, they have leverage to work out solutions with lenders and landlords alike. However, Governor Kemp's executive order will take away some leverage because landlords and lenders may look to his order to tell the defaulting party that they can open and therefore should open, even if it's not otherwise financially feasible.
Nancy C. Prager is a corporate and intellectual property transactions attorney in Atlanta. Prager Law serves technology, entertainment and agency clients as well as other small and mid-size businesses.
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 AllGeorgia Appeals Court Cancels Hearing in Election Interference Case Against Trump
3 minute readJustice Department Says Fulton County Jail Conditions Violate Detainee Rights
6 minute readSupreme Court Rejects Push to Move Georgia Case Against Ex-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
3 minute read3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Corporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
- 2Goodwin, Polsinelli, Fox Rothschild Find New Phila. Offices
- 3Helping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
- 4How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 5A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
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