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
Lavelle Law represented a joint venture in its $9.9 million acquisition of four multi-unit buildings.
A Type F reorganization (“F Reorg”), governed by Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code, provides a strategically significant mechanism for corporate restructuring. Defined as a “mere change in identity, form, or place of organization of one corporation,” an F Reorg permits a corporation to alter its legal existence while being treated for federal tax purposes as the same entity. This recharacterization allows for the uninterrupted preservation of tax attributes while maintaining shareholder continuity.
When it comes to estate planning, most people think about providing for their loved ones—but what about the furry, feathered, or scaled members of your family? In the United States, 68% of households own at least one pet, according to the American Pet Products Association’s 2023-2024 National Pet Owners Survey. For many, pets are more than just companions—they’re family. Ensuring their care after your death or incapacity is a vital part of comprehensive estate planning. In Illinois, a Pet Trust offers a powerful solution to guarantee your pet’s well-being long after you’re gone.
IRS Press Release Addresses Payment Plan Options - A recent press release by the IRS addressed the options that are available to taxpayers who may owe more on April 15th than they can pay. The IRS advised taxpayers that they do not need to wait until April 15 to file their 2024 federal return, and if they owe and are unable to pay the balance in full, there are payment plans available to help them pay their tax obligation.
Join us on May 21 in Schaumburg for an engaging Breakfast Briefs seminar, delving into vital strategies to fortify your business. This session will explore the critical role of crafting ironclad non-compete agreements, shielding your trade secrets, and mastering the nuances of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and injunctive relief. Our presenters, attorneys Matthew Sheahin and Jennifer Tee, bring a wealth of experience in this legal domain. Seize this chance to bolster your company’s legal protections and lay a solid groundwork for enduring success!
On March 21, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued its interim final rule stating that those entities previously classified as "domestic reporting companies" are now exempt from all BOI reporting requirements. On the other hand, all foreign entities registered to do business in the USA must file their own initial BOI reports within 30 days of the initial final rule's publication, if they have not done so already.
Spring is here, and with baseball season kicking off, we’re stepping up to the plate with our annual Lavelle Law Business After Hours event. We’re excited to partner with our friends in the Schaumburg business community for an evening of networking, good vibes, and a few surprises—all hosted in the friendly confines of our Schaumburg office. Bonus points: Feel free to rock your favorite baseball team’s gear and show off your fandom while you’re at it!
Delaware corporations seeking to redomesticate to another state should be advised that on February 4, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Palkon v. Maffei, C.A. No. 2023-0449-JTL, addressing a challenge to TripAdvisor's redomestication from a Delaware corporation to a Nevada corporation. The case raised important questions regarding the standard of review applicable to such reincorporations, particularly when fiduciaries may derive a benefit from shifting to a legal regime perceived as more friendly.
Recent legislative efforts in Illinois are reshaping the state’s approach to residential zoning, with significant implications for the housing market. A new bill, House Bill 1814, introduced last week, aims to eliminate single-family zoning in municipalities across Illinois. If passed, this bill will allow for the development of multi-unit buildings in areas currently zoned exclusively for single-family homes. This initiative, alongside a similar bill introduced last year, has the potential to address the state’s growing housing shortage and make housing more affordable for middle-class families.
On February 27, 2025, FinCEN issued an immediate press release stating it would not impose fines, penalties, or take any other enforcement actions against companies that fail to file or update Beneficial Ownership Information ("BOI") reports pursuant to the Corporate Transparency Act ("CTA") by the current deadlines. FinCEN also announced that it would be revising BOI reporting deadlines through an interim final rule set to be issued no later than March 21, 2025.
