Agrégateur de flux

A book titled International Commercial Arbitration in the European Union, by Chukwudi Ojiegbe, has recently been published by Edward Elgar.

The blurb reads as follows:

This illuminating book contributes to knowledge on the impact of Brexit on international commercial arbitration in the EU. Entering the fray at a critical watershed in the EU’s history, Chukwudi Ojiegbe turns to the interaction of court litigation and international commercial arbitration, offering crucial insights into the future of EU law in these fields. Ojiegbe reviews a plethora of key aspects of the law that will encounter the aftermath Brexit, focusing on the implications of the mutual trust principle and the consequences for the EU exclusive competence in aspects of international commercial arbitration. He explores the principles of anti-suit injunction and other mechanisms that may be deployed by national courts and arbitral tribunals to prevent parallel court and arbitration proceedings. Advancing academic debate on the EU arbitration/litigation interface, this book suggests innovative solutions to alleviate this longstanding and seemingly intractable issue. Arriving at a time of legal uncertainty, this book offers crucial guidance for policymakers and lawyers dealing with the interaction of court litigation and international commercial arbitration in the EU, as well as academics and researchers studying contemporary EU and commercial law.

More information available here.

By Dr Sarah McKibbin

In the recent decision of RCD Holdings Ltd v LT Game International (Australia) Ltd,[1] Davis J of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed proceedings brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause that had been expressed in ‘an arm’s length agreement reached between commercial entities’.[2] In deciding whether to exercise his discretion not to stay or dismiss proceedings, Davis J examined whether procedural disadvantages and ‘inconvenience’ in the jurisdiction nominated in the clause were relevant considerations.

In 2013, the parties entered a contract setting up a scheme to promote a computer betting game at casinos in Melbourne, Nevada and Melbourne.[3] The contract, which was signed and to be partially performed in Australia, included a clause entitled ‘Governing Law’ by which the parties agreed that:[4]

any dispute or issue arising hereunder, including an alleged breach by any party, shall be heard, determined and resolved by an action commenced in Macau. The English language will be used in all documents.

A dispute arose and, notwithstanding the clause, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings in Queensland alleging breaches of the contract in connection with the scheme’s implementation at Crown Casino in Melbourne. The defendant, LT, entered a conditional appearance seeking to strike out the claim or, alternatively, have it stayed based on the exclusive jurisdiction clause. The plaintiffs’ submissions focused on the inconvenience of having to litigate in Macau and the perceived procedural advantages secured by LT in doing so.[5] The plaintiffs further submitted that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented them from commencing proceedings in Macau.[6]

The decision reinforces that ‘strong reasons’[7] are required to enliven the court’s discretion not to grant a stay of proceedings brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. This reflects a fundamental policy consideration that ‘“parties who have made a contract should be kept to it”’.[8] Here, the parties differed on the circumstances relevant to the exercise of this discretion.[9] The plaintiffs relied upon the list of circumstances identified by Brandon J in The Eleftheria, which included ‘the relative convenience and expense of the trial’ and ‘[w]hether the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by having to sue in the foreign court’.[10]  As Davis J marked, subsequent English and Australian decisions have questioned the role of procedural disadvantages and inconvenience in the nominated jurisdiction, ‘at least when they are factors which should have been known at the time the exclusive jurisdiction clause was agreed.’[11]

In that respect, Davis J followed the judgment of Bell P in the recent New South Wales Court of Appeal decision of Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group,[12] which endorsed the critical observations of Allsop J in Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corp[13] and Waller J in British Aerospace plc v Dee Howard Co.[14] In Incitec, Allsop J perceived ‘financial and forensic inconvenience’ to the party bound by the clause to be the direct consequence of the bargain entered.[15] In a similar vein, Waller J in British Aerospace considered that these factors ‘would have been eminently foreseeable at the time that [the parties] entered into the contract’.[16]

Setting issues of ‘inconvenience’ to one side, however, Davis J attached greater significance to the fact that the parties upon contracting presumably ‘considered the commercial wisdom of agreeing’ to the inclusion of the clause.[17] The factors relied upon by the plaintiffs were in existence and could have been taken into account by the parties at the time of contracting.[18] Indeed, evidence demonstrated that the courts of Macau: (1) could deal with the claim; (2) could provide the remedy sought by the plaintiffs; and (3) would accept court documents in the English language.[19] Issues of inconvenience ‘can hardly be weighty in the exercise of discretion where one party seeks to deny the other the benefit of the covenant.’[20] Finally, Davis J observed that ‘there is little, if any, evidence at all as to the impact of the pandemic upon any litigation in Macau’.[21] Yet, ‘if the pandemic developed so as to effectively prevent, or unduly frustrate’ litigation in Macau, this discretionary consideration would be taken into account together with ‘any other relevant considerations’ in a subsequent application.[22]

[1] [2020] QSC 318.

[2] Ibid, [56].

[3] Davis J observes that ‘[t]he scheme is clearly to be targeted at casinos throughout the world’: at para [7].

[4] RCD Holdings (n 1) [8].

[5] Ibid, [54].

[6] Ibid, [33].

[7] Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197, 259 (Gaudron J). Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418, 429 (Dawson and McHugh JJ), 445 (Toohey, Gaudron and Gummow JJ).

[8] Ibid, quoted in RCD Holdings (n 1) [57].

[9] Ibid, [58].

[10] Ibid.

[11] See, eg, British Aerospace plc v Dee Howard Co [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368; Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corp (2004) 138 FCR 496, 506; Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd (2019) 99 NSWLR 419.

[12] Australian Health & Nutrition (n 7).

[13] (2004) 138 FCR 496, 506 [49].

[14] [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368, 376.

[15] Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corp (n 11) 506 [49].

[16] British Aerospace plc v Dee Howard Co (n 12) 376.

[17] RCD Holdings (n 1), [65].

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid, [32].

[20] Ibid, [65].

[21] Ibid, [70].

[22] Ibid.

Guest post by Ulla Liukkunen, Professor of Labour Law and Private International Law at the University of Helsinki and Director of the Finnish Center of Chinese Law and Chinese Legal Culture

The International Academy of Comparative Law launched a new open access publication in November 2020. Volume no 1 on the use of comparative law methodology in international arbitration contains articles by Emmanuel Gaillard, Sebastián Partida, Charles-Maurice Mazuy, S.I. Strong, Johannes Landbrecht, Morad El Kadmiri, Marco Torsello, Ulla Liukkunen, Alyssa King, Alexander Ferguson, Dorothée Goertz and Luis Bergolla as well as introductory remarks on the topic by the Secretary-General of the Academy, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo.

The volume no 1 is available on aidc-iacl.org/journal.

 

The article “Chinese context and complexities — comparative law and private international law facing new normativities in international commercial arbitration” was written by Ulla Liukkunen, Professor of Labour Law and Private International Law at the University of Helsinki and Director of the Finnish Center of Chinese Law and Chinese Legal Culture.

 

Professor Liukkunen examines international commercial arbitration from the perspective of Chinese developments, noting that, in global terms, the organization of cross-border dispute resolution is changing as a part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) development. With the BRI, Chinese interest in international commercial arbitration has gained a new dimension as BRI promotes the expansion of Chinese dispute resolution institutions and their international competitiveness.

 

According to Liukkunen, these developments challenge the current narrative of international arbitration. She explores private international law as a framework for unfolding noteworthy characteristics of the Chinese legal system and legal culture that are present in international commercial arbitration and can be linked to an assessment of the role of the BRI in shaping the arbitration regime. A rethink of comparative methodology is proposed in order to promote an understanding of Chinese law in the arbitration process.

 

Moreover, Liukkunen argues that considerations of the Chinese private international law and arbitration regime speak for a broader comparative research perspective towards international commercial arbitration. In the international commercial arbitration frame under scrutiny, we can see the conception of party autonomy placed in a Chinese context where the state is shaping the still relatively young private international law frame for exercise of that freedom and certain institutional structures are advocated where party autonomy is placed. Chinese development underlines the connection between the legal regime of arbitration and endeavours by the state, thereby requiring assessment of party autonomy from the perspective of the regulatory framework of private international law that expresses the complex dichotomy between private and public interests.

 

 

 

 

Statut collectif de travail

Cour d'assises

Mandat d'arrêt européen

After the successful first four online seminars on Brussels IIter last week (see previous post on Brussels IIter seminars), we have decided to add a seventh seminar to our series: Child Participation: past research results and the new rules of Brussels IIter, 17 December 2020, 14.00 – 15.15 (after the seminar on provisional measures, transfer and lis pendens, which will end at 13.45). Chair person: Laura Carpaneto, University of Genoa Francesca Maoli, University of Genoa, in collaboration with Tine Van Hof, University of Antwerp Robert Fucik, Austrian Central Authority. Please enrol if you are interested and then we will send the link for the zoom meeting. Persons who have already enrolled for any of the other six sessions can join without having to enrol again.

The facts of the 2021 Pax Moot is available (see https://paxmoot.com/the-case/)! Teams can start registering.

The 2021 Round is named after Arthur von Mehren, a giant of international procedure across the Atlantic.  2021 will mark the 15th year after his passing away. After the adoption of the 2019 Hague Convention (which might prove relevant for the case ;-)) the organisers thought it appropriate to celebrate him in this way.

The pleadings will take pace in April 2021 (the timeline and further information are available on the Pax webpage).

Following a lecture delivered in September 2020 at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and Private International Law in Hamburg, Giesela Rühl (Humboldt University of Berlin) published a paper on SSRN – Towards a German Supply Chain Act? Comments from a Choice of Law and Comparative Perspective – analysing the project for a legislative proposal expected to shape Germany’s legislation in the field of corporate responsibility.

The project for a Supply Chain Act (Lieferkettengesetz) comes as a response to a second national survey published in July which analysed the implementation of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP). According to the results presented by the Federal Labour Minister Hubertus Heil and Federal International Development Minister Gerd Müller only a few companies are voluntarily taking responsibility to ensure that human rights are respected in their supply chain. Consequently, the coalition considered that the idea of a national supply chain law needs to be pursued. A hearing by the Committee for Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the German Bundestag that took place on 28 October 2020 under the leadership of Gyde Jensen (FDP) showed that many experts in Germany are in favour of a Supply Chain Law. Experts from business, politics and society predominantly supported the federal government’s plan for such a law, which is intended to improve compliance with human rights and environmental standards in the global environment.

As the subject remains a hot topic for the German legislator and it will have consequences beyond the German territory, Prof. Rühl’s addresses some of these relevant aspects from a private international law and comparative perspective. The abstract of the paper reads as follow:

The protection of human rights in global supply chains has become one of the most hotly debated issues in public and private (international) law. In a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, these debates have led to the introduction of domestic human rights legislation. In other countries reform plans are under way. In Germany, for example, the federal government recently announced plans to adopt a German Supply Chain Act, which, if passed as suggested, will introduce both mandatory human rights due diligence obligations and mandatory corporate liability pro-visions. The following article takes this announcement as an opportunity to look at the idea of a German Supply Chain Act from both a choice of law and from a comparative perspective. It argues that that any such Act will necessarily be limited in both its spatial and in its substantive reach and, therefore, recommends that Germany refrains from passing national legislation – and supports the adoption of a European instrument instead.

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne se penche, en application du règlement Bruxelles I bis, sur les difficultés procédurales liées à la mise en œuvre d’une action engagée par un copropriétaire d’un bien situé dans un État membre contre un autre copropriétaire localisé dans un État membre différent.

en lire plus

L’ancien président de la République Nicolas Sarkozy, son avocat Thierry Herzog et l’ex-avocat général près la Cour de cassation Gilbert Azibert comparaissent depuis le 23 novembre devant le tribunal correctionnel de Paris pour corruption, trafic d’influence et violation du secret professionnel.

en lire plus

Preuve - Enregistrement

Probably precisely because it would have been obvious, Bobek AG did not refer in the opening lines of his Opinion in C-307/19 Obala v NLB to Groundhog Day, which, following Pula Parking, this case certainly is. He did at 2 summarise why the issue, essentially on the notion of ‘civil and commercial’ under Brussels Ia and the Service Regulation 1393/2007 keeps on coming before the CJEU (this time in no less than 9 long questions):

The crux of the problem appears to be a certain double privatisation carried out by the Croatian legislature at both management and enforcement level. A matter commonly perceived in other Member States to be administrative in nature is entrusted to private entities. The subsequent enforcement of such a claim is also not designed to be a matter for the courts, but rather, at least at first instance, for notaries.

The EC had objected to quite a few questions on the basis that they engaged too much the substance of the case, which the AG disagrees with: at 31 he suggest that inevitably in conflict of laws jurisdictional advice, ‘telescopic analysis of the substance’ is needed.

On the issue of ‘civil and commercial’, Germany and Slovenia submit the origin of the power under which the contract was concluded and which is enforced in this respect that is determinant.  The applicant, the Croatian Government and the Commission take the opposite view: to them, it is not the origin of the power but rather the modalities of its exercise which represent the determinative element for identifying ‘civil and commercial matters’. It is quite extraordinary that we should still not have consensus on this after to many cases, however as I noted in my review of Buak, the divergent emphasis by different chambers of  the Court has not helped.

At 42 ff Bobek summarily revisits the case-law under BIa (he concedes at 53-54 that case-law on other instruments does not add much), concluding at 52 that the CJEU has used both the ‘subject matter’ approach and the ‘legal relationship’ approach, without expressing a preference for either.

At 59 the Advocate-General opts for the ‘legal relationship’ approach, arguing that path ‘most reliably performs the function of the figurative railroad switch point guiding the dispute from one procedural track to another in search of the ‘right’ institutional path in a Member State at the preliminary stage of jurisdiction’. That path is also the one which as I point out in my review of Buak, was followed by the Second (which includes President Lenaerts, the chair of conflict of laws at Leuven prior to my immediate predecessor, Hans van Houtte) and not the First Chamber:

The Second chamber (K. Lenaerts, A. Prechal, Toader, Rosas and Ilešič in Buak, focus on Sapir which was issued by the third Chamber, comprising at the time Toader (Rapporteur), Ilešič, Jarašiūnas, Ó Caoimh,  Fernlund. Toader and Ilešič are the common denominator with judment in BUAK. Sapir has focus also firstly on the legal relationship between the parties to the dispute, but secondly the basis and the detailed rules governing the bringing of the action (not: the to my knowledge never applied Eurocontrol criterion of ‘subject matter’ of the action).

At 66 the AG offers ‘pointers’ within the ‘nature of the legal relationship’ approach which he believes may be of assistance to any public power assessment:

‘(i) start with the legal relationship which characterises the dispute; (ii) assess it against the framework generally applicable to private parties; and (iii) establish whether the dispute arises from a unilateral exercise of public powers outside that normal private ‘reference framework’.’

which applied to the case at issue, he concludes at 87, leads to a finding of there not appearing to be an exercise of public powers.

I conclude my overview of ‘civil and commercial’ at para 2.65 of the third ed of the Handbook (forthcoming February 2021) with

the acte clair doctrine (meaning that national courts need not refer to the CJEU when the interpretation of EU law is sufficiently clear either by virtue of that law itself or following CJEU interpretation in case-law) implies that national courts by now ought to have been given plenty of markers when applying this condition of application of the Brussels I and Recast Regulation. Except of course the acte might not be that clair at all, as the above overview shows.

Bobek AG seems to have a similar end in mind: at 65: there is no unicorn, a truly autonomous interpretation of ‘civil and commercial’.

The Opinion continues with the classic themes of whether notaries are courts, and a firm opinion that leaving your car in a public parking space provokes contractual relations.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, paras 2.28 ff concluding at 2.65.

Groundhog day? Bobek AG this morning seems to think so: on the notion of 'civil and commercial' (and 'contract') in Brussels Ia, jurisdictional matters relating to a parking ticket enforced by notaries in Croatia. Again.
Obala v NLB https://t.co/N5aDJgTWfs pic.twitter.com/tEHROvHr4V

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 26, 2020

Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging
Liberté d'établissement
La directive concernant le détachement de travailleurs effectué dans le cadre d’une prestation de services est applicable aux prestations de services transnationales dans le secteur du transport routier

The author of this post is Franz Kaps, Lawyer at DL Piper, Frankfurt am Main.

To stop the spread of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic governments closed ports and “non-essential businesses”, restricted travel and imposed “lockdowns” or “stay-at-home” orders. In cases where the COVID-19 pandemic or government measures disrupt commercial contracts, it is necessary to carefully analyze the state of affairs to determine the appropriate remedy. A considerable number of articles have already been written on contracts affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and now it is time to summarize the legal situation for commercial contracts in the most important jurisdictions in a nutshell. This post therefore presents remedies for commercial contracts affected by COVID-19, under the laws of the countries whose systems are most commonly chosen to be applied to commercial contracts, and the CISG.

UK, Hong Kong, Singapore Force Majeure

Force majeure is principally a matter of contract law in the common law jurisdictions England, Hong Kong and Singapore. Whether a force majeure clause is applicable in a particular situation and its consequences depends primarily on the wording of the force majeure clause. A clause modelled, for example, on the 2020 ICC force majeure clause (long form), presumes that an epidemic is a force majeure event; pandemics such as COVID-19 are not expressly mentioned, therefore it will be for the arbitral tribunals and courts to interpret the term “epidemic” under no. 3 (e) ICC to encompass pandemics.

The burden of proof is on the party invoking the force majeure clause as defense. Such a party has to demonstrate that a force majeure event occurred and that it had the stipulated effect on the contractual performance. If a party invokes a force majeure clause in a commercial contract, it releases the party from its contractual obligations when circumstances beyond its control have prevented, hindered or delayed its performance.

In case the COVID-19 pandemic falls within the scope of the force majeure clause, parties should carefully examine whether there are other relevant contractual terms affecting the application of the clause – in particular, whether there are any requirements to notify the other party before invoking the clause.

Frustration

Besides force majeure clauses, the main common law doctrine with potential relevance to the discharge of obligations in the light of unforeseen events – like the COVID-19 pandemic – is frustration. According to it, a contract may be discharged upon the occurrence of an unforeseeable event that either renders the contractual obligation impossible or radically changes the basis upon which the contract was reached. However, it should be noted that the doctrine of frustration has a very limited scope.

Germany Impossibility

Pursuant to Section 275 German Civil Code (BGB) a party is not required to perform its obligations to the extent that performance is impossible. Section 275 German Civil Code applies not only if performance of the obligation is technically or legally impossible, but also in cases where performance is still technically and legally possible, but would require expenses and efforts which, considering the subject matter of the obligation and the requirements of good faith, would be grossly disproportionate to the creditor’s interest of performance. In addition, Section 275 German Civil Code governs temporary impediments, i. e. a claim for performance is excluded as long as performance is impossible. However, German courts respect the legal principle pacta sunt servanda and hence apply Section 275 German Civil Code narrowly, in order not to undermine the agreed contractual obligations.

Frustration of Purpose

The doctrine of “frustration of purpose” (German Störung der Geschäftsgrundlage) can be invoked in cases affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Frustration of purpose under Section 313 German Civil Code will apply where the balance between performance and counter-performance of a contract is significantly changed in a way that was not foreseeable by the parties when the contract was concluded. Such a “frustrated contract” entitles the disadvantaged party to request the amendment of the contract. If an amendment of the contract is not possible or unreasonable, the disadvantaged party may rescind or terminate the contract. According to case law the principle of “contractual loyalty” requires a strict interpretation of Section 313 German Civil Code.

France Force Majeure

Article 1218 French Civil Code addresses the concept of force majeure. According to its Article 1218 , the debtor’s performance is prevented by a force majeure event if three cumulative criteria are met:

1. The event must be beyond the control of the debtor;
2. It must be an event which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract; and
3. The effects of the event could not be avoided by appropriate measures.

The legal consequence of Article 1218 French Civil Code is that if performance of the obligation is temporarily prevented, it is suspended unless the delay justifies termination of the contract. In the event of permanent prevention, the contract is terminated by operation of law and the parties are discharged from their obligations.

Hardship

The recently introduced Article 1195 French Civil Code requires renegotiation of a contract if circumstances which were unforeseeable at the time of conclusion of the contract render performance excessively onerous for a party which had not accepted to bear that risk. If renegotiations fail, the parties may agree to terminate the contract, or request a court to revise or terminate the contract.

Switzerland

Swiss law has no statutory provision for force majeure events. In the absence of a force majeure clause in a contract, the applicable legal regime depends on whether the performance of the contract is impossible.

Pursuant to Article 119, 62 Swiss Code of Obligations, the impossibility to perform a contract – due to circumstances not attributable to the debtor – releases both parties from their obligations to perform and leads to the unwinding of the contract according to the rules of unjust enrichment.

In case the impossibility to perform the obligation lasts only for a limited time, the default provisions of Article 107 to 109 Swiss Code of Obligations apply. They provide that if one party is in default, the other party may set an appropriate time limit for the performance. If no performance is rendered during such a time limit, the other party may terminate the contract.

When the performance of a contract is not entirely impossible, but has become extremely onerous, a party may rely on the legal doctrine clausula rebus sic stantibus. It must be a situation which is not only extremely onerous but was also unforeseeable when the contract was concluded. In such circumstances, the parties may agree to amend or terminate the contract. Should one party insist that the contract remains unchanged, the other party may refer the matter before a court. If the requirement of clausula rebus sic stantibus are fulfilled, the court may order an amendment or the termination of the contract.

United States

U.S. contract law is ordinarily a matter of state law. I will focus on New York law, as it is the most commonly chosen by commercial parties to govern their contracts.

Contractual Force Majeure Clauses

Force majeure clauses are contractual provisions that may excuse a party’s non-performance when circumstances beyond the control of a party prevent performance. New York courts have held that force majeure clauses are to be interpreted in a narrow sense and that performance under a contract is ordinarily excused only if the event preventing performance is explicitly mentioned in the force majeure clause.

Subsidiary Solutions

In the absence of a force majeure clause, the common law doctrines of impossibility, impracticability and “frustration of purpose” may excuse performance.

The doctrine of impossibility excuses a party’s performance only when the destruction of the subject matter of the contract or the means of performance makes performance objectively impossible. The impossibility must be produced by an unanticipated event that could not have been foreseen or guarded against in the contract. Impossibility is therefore a narrow legal doctrine.

The doctrine of impracticability is similar to the doctrine of impossibility, but it is more flexible in its application. According to the doctrine of impracticability, a failure to perform contractual obligations is excused, if a party’s performance is made impracticable without its fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made. Courts have generally applied the doctrine of impracticability conservatively.

Frustration of purpose is a common law doctrine that excuses a party’s performance under a contract when an unforeseen event renders the contract “virtually worthless” to the affected party. Although a literal performance under the contract is still technically possible, the frustrated purpose must be so completely the basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made little sense. The threshold of the doctrine of frustration of purpose is high, because performance of the contract must be economically impossible.

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)

The CISG is applicable to contracts for the sale of goods between parties who have their place of business in different states, if these states are contracting states or if the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a contracting state and the CISG was not expressly excluded in the contract.

Strict Liability

Contracts for the supply of goods under the CISG are governed by the strict liability of the debtor. It is therefore irrelevant for the liability of the debtor whether they are responsible for the improper performance or the non-performance of their contractual obligation.

Exemption of Liability

In order to mitigate the strict liability of the debtor, Article 79 CISG provides for an exemption from the debtor’s liability if the failure to perform any of their obligations is due to an impediment beyond their control. It is additionally required that they could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome the impediment or its consequences. Article 79 CISG is advantageous to the seller. If the non-performance of an obligation to deliver is based on a force majeure event, the seller is released from the obligation to perform the contract for the period of the impediment. Also, the seller is not obliged to pay damages, because the performance is prevented by the force majeure event. However, pursuant to Article 79 para. 4 CISG the seller must inform the buyer of the impediment and its effects on their ability to perform within a reasonable period of time after they have or should have become aware of the impediment. Otherwise, they are liable for damages resulting from such non-receipt. The burden of proof that a contractual obligation was not performed or was delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic lies with the debtor.

International practice accepts epidemics as being beyond the debtor’s typical sphere of control. Consequently, the COVID-19 pandemic could constitute a minore ad maius an impediment beyond control according to Article 79 CISG. Whether the COVID-19 virus exempts debtors from their obligation to perform the commercial contract depends on the individual case, since it requires a causal link between the impediment and non-performance.

Takeaway

The impact the COVID-19 pandemic will have on the parties’ commercial contracts depends primary on the wording of their force majeure clause. In case of a force majeure event, the arbitral tribunals and the courts grant the terms of a commercial contract precedence over the applicable law. If a commercial contract does not contain a force majeure clause, or if does not cover pandemics, the applicable laws determine the available remedies. The remedies and requirements under the applicable law for commercial contracts affected by the COVID-19 pandemic differ. National laws have in common that legal doctrines which amend or terminate contractual agreements are narrowly construed. The underlying consideration is that arbitral tribunals and courts are only exceptionally authorized to “rewrite” the contractual obligations of the parties. It is therefore decisive whether the contractual provisions comprise a force majeure clause covering the COVID-19 pandemic. Against this backdrop parties should commercial evaluate – based on the facts of each case – their options to invoke a force majeure defense or to perform, amend, or terminate their commercial contracts.

In light of the high thresholds for a force majeure defense under the applicable law, it is essential to ensure legal certainty by including a force majeure clause in commercial contracts which clearly encompasses epidemics and pandemics. In particular, the party that would be affected by an epidemic or pandemic in the performance of its contractual obligations should assure that such events are expressly referred to in their force majeure clause, to ensure a balanced distribution of risks. Whether the situation is one of an epidemic or a pandemic should be determine by an objective criterion: a declaration by the World Health Organization would be useful to decide when the events under examination trigger the force majeure consequences.

Good starting point for future “tailor-made” force majeure clauses in commercial contracts is the balanced 2020 ICC force majeure proposal. Moreover, as in our globalized world, the next epidemic or pandemic will spread sooner or later, a lege artis force majeure clause must cover epidemics and pandemics.

N’est pas valablement recueilli le consentement au traitement de données personnelles au moyen d’une case cochée par défaut figurant au contrat.

en lire plus