Force majeure CASES

In English law, force majeure refers to contractual clauses excusing parties from performing obligations when extraordinary events beyond their control prevent performance.

The phrase “force majeure” is French and literally translates to “superior force.”

Definition and Principles

Force majeure clauses typically cover unforeseen events such as natural disasters, war, strikes, pandemics, or governmental actions, suspending or excusing contractual obligations during such events.

Key Features

  • Specific Events Listed: Clearly defines circumstances qualifying as force majeure.
  • Obligation Suspension: Temporarily or permanently relieves parties from duties affected by the event.
  • Notification Requirements: Usually requires timely notice to invoke the clause.

Practical Importance

Effective force majeure clauses allow businesses to manage unforeseen risks, ensuring contractual fairness by allocating responsibility clearly during disruptions.

Limitations

Force majeure does not apply automatically; it must be explicitly included and clearly defined within contracts.

Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel & Co [1918] UKHL 1, [1919] AC 435

A vessel charter was delayed indefinitely when the ship was requisitioned by the Government before delivery. The House of Lords held that the prolonged requisition frustrated the contract, despite a standard “restraint of princes” clause, because it fundamentally destroyed the commercial venture contemplated by the parties.

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr [1970] EUECJ C-11/70

A German company challenged EU regulations requiring export licence deposits as contrary to German constitutional rights. The Court of Justice ruled that Community law validity cannot be judged by national constitutional standards, but fundamental rights form part of Community law's general principles.

Lauritzen A/A v Wijsmuller B.V. [1989] EWCA Civ 6 (12 October 1989)

Wijsmuller contracted to transport Lauritzen's drilling rig using either Super Servant One or Two. Super Servant Two sank before performance. Wijsmuller allocated Super Servant One to other contracts and claimed frustration. The Court of Appeal held the contract was not frustrated because Wijsmuller's election determined which contract could not be performed.