CHICAGO: 312 332 7555 SCHAUMBURG: 847 705 7555
Blog Post
If You’re Planning to Use a Force Majeure Clause to Terminate a Contract, Look Before you Leap
Brian J. Massimino • March 26, 2020
In this age of corona-created uncertainty, there is very little good news for businesses. The White House has declared a national state of emergency. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recommends avoiding gatherings of 10 people or more. Air travel has dropped to drastically low levels. The reduction in travel alone has massive implications for related services, including lodging, meals, and entertainment. Fear and anxiety will likely usurp calm and rational business decision making for the foreseeable future.
All of these events have conspired to create even more uncertainty. Business owners and decision makers are certainly looking at all available options to protect their business. It would make sense for anyone to do a quick word search in his or her contracts for “force majeure.” Chances are, however, that the force majeure clause may not provide the escape most businesses hope.
What is a force majeure clause? A force majeure clause is a contractual provision included in most business contracts. These clauses are intended to permit the contracting parties to agree in advance what “Acts of God” would excuse a parties’ performance all together or permit an extension of time to perform. Typical “Acts of God” include extreme weather and seismic events. Many times parties expand the force majeure clauses to include strikes, acts of war, terrorism and other related events.
However, just because a party claims an event is a “force majeure”, it does not necessarily make it so. Any court reviewing a force majeure claim will undoubtedly focus on the precise language that parties included in the contract. PPG Industries v. Shell Oil Company, 919 F.2d 17, at 18 (5th Cir.1990) (“Instead, they should look to the language that the parties specifically bargained for in the contract to determine the parties' intent concerning whether the event complained of excuses performance.”)(emphasis added). After all, the contract is intended to reflect the benefit of the parties’ bargain.
An example from recent history may be helpful. In November 2000, a company made plans to host an industry event at a resort in Hawaii. OWBR LLC v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Haw. 2003). The event was scheduled to take place in February 2002. The parties included the following force majeure language in their contract:
The parties' performance under this Agreement is subject to acts of God, war, government regulation, terrorism, disaster, strikes (except those involving the Hotel's employees or agents), civil disorder, curtailment of transportation facilities, or any other emergency beyond the parties' control, making it inadvisable, illegal, or impossible to perform their obligations under this Agreement.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the travel restrictions that ensued, the defendant sought to terminate the agreement citing the above clause. They argued that holding the event was “inadvisable” due to potential attendees’ “fear and uncertainty” related to air travel. Defendants further argued that they were permitted to terminate under the force majeure clause.
The Court disagreed. While recognizing the “extreme” and “unforeseeable” nature of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Court determined that:
[A] force majeure clause does not excuse performance for economic inadvisability, even when the economic conditions are the product of a force majeure event. The Force Majeure clause does not contain language that excuses performance on the basis of poor economic conditions, lower than expected attendance, or withdrawal of commitments from sponsors and participants.
Id. at 1223–24 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). In other words, the Court strictly interpreted the precise language of the parties’ agreement and determined that it did not extend as far as defendants argued.
Interestingly, if the above facts were repeated in present day and it was the coronavirus pandemic (and not the terrorist attacks) that prompted the cancellation, the outcome would likely have been different.
Regardless, the two significant takeaways from this should be:
- A force majeure clause will not protect a non-performing party in all instances, even if the reason for non-performance relates to some "Act of God," and
- Going forward, consider crafting a force majeure clause that addresses the problems associated with global pandemics.
The business attorneys at Lavelle Law are ready, willing and able to represent your business in these uncertain times. If you would like more information about this topic contact Brian Massimino at bmassimino@lavellelaw.com
or312-705-7555 for a free consultation.
More News & Resources
Lavelle Law News and Events
This article will serve as another update to the ongoing Corporate Transparency Act developments. As of February 17, 2025, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas lifted the injunction it had ordered on January 7, 2025, in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 6:24-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.), allowing the federal government to once again enforce the Corporate Transparency Act and its Beneficial Ownership Information Report requirements.
This article is the second in our Litigation 101 series. It focuses on the flip side: how to sue someone else.
Suing someone is a serious decision that requires careful thought and preparation. Before pursuing legal action, it’s crucial to reflect on the issue and understand the steps involved in bringing a lawsuit. This article outlines the basics to help you approach the process with confidence and make informed decisions.
On December 11, 2024, we published an article titled “Corporate Transparency Act on Hold: Key Implications for Businesses,” which addressed the nationwide injunction impacting the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act and its Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting rule.
Since then, there have been a few significant legal developments that businesses should monitor closely. While the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is currently prohibited from enforcing BOIR requirements, ongoing litigation, and the related appeals may alter this status. Below, we provide a timeline of key events and insights into what business owners should anticipate moving forward.
The Internal Revenue Service is issuing automatic payments to eligible people who did not claim a Recovery Rebate Credit on their 2021 tax returns. The payments are in follow up to an IRS announcement last month of the intent to take this special step. The IRS took this step after reviewing internal data showing many eligible taxpayers who filed a return but did not claim the credit. The Recovery Rebate Credit is a refundable credit for individuals who did not receive one or more Economic Impact Payments (“EIP”), also known as stimulus payments.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes federal minimum wage and overtime pay requirements, with exemptions for employees in bona fide executive, administrative, professional, computer or outside sales roles. 29 U.S.C. § 213. Employees classified as "outside sales" must primarily engage in making sales or obtaining contracts for services or the use of facilities, and they must conduct their work primarily away from their employer’s place of business. 29 C.F.R. § 541.500.
Amendments to BIPA
SB 2929 became effective on August 2, 2024. Codified as 740 ILCS 14/10 and 14/20, this Act introduced two pivotal changes to BIPA that dealers should be aware of:
• Limiting Per-Scan Damages: The amendments clarify that a single violation under BIPA accrues per type of violation, rather than per scan. This significantly reduces the financial exposure for dealerships.
• Electronic Consent: The amendments formalize electronic signatures as a valid means of securing biometric consent, streamlining compliance processes for businesses.
The National Taxpayer Advocate recently released her annual report to Congress. A few highlights from the report are summarized in this article.
Nearly 300 New Illinois Laws are going into effect in 2025. Listed below are some that may have a significant impact on you or your business.
As we say farewell to 2024, we’re excited to look back on the unforgettable moments from our Koozie Challenge! From the frozen wonders of Antarctica to the excitement of the Paris Olympics, and countless incredible destinations in between, the Lavelle Law koozie truly went the distance this year! A big thank you to our clients, staff, family, and friends who took part in the fun. Here’s to even more adventures in 2025! Happy New Year from Lavelle Law!
Schaumburg-based Lavelle Law wrapped its annual food drive benefiting the Schaumburg Township Food Pantry. During the month of October, Lavelle Law set up collection boxes around Schaumburg and the surrounding area, where residents and workers could drop off nonperishable food items, paper goods, personal care items, baby food and diapers. Participants could also make cash donations online.
STAY UP TO DATE
Subscribe to our newsletter
OUR LOCATIONS
Phone: 312 332 7555
Fax: 312 332 4611
Fax: 847 705 9960
Created by Olive + Ash.
Managed by Olive Street Design. 