Short Reads

Contracts & Corona: force majeure and related topics

Contracts & Corona: force majeure and related topics

Contracts & Corona: force majeure and related topics

23.03.2020 BE law

The spread of the coronavirus may have some consequences that affect your ability to perform your obligations under your contracts, or your co-contractors’ ability to perform theirs. We provide some insight on a few pressing questions.

Does a debtor still have to honour its contract when this has become impossible, for instance due to government measures?

In order to be freed from performing its contract without being liable for damages, a debtor will have to prove force majeure. The question arises when one can rely on force majeure.

As a general rule of thumb, you should first check the contract for any provisions governing force majeure. These provisions could specify the rules of general contract law and may either restrict/exclude or extend the possibility to invoke force majeure. They may also give further guidance on what a debtor should do when it wants to invoke force majeure, and/or what the consequences will be.

If no contractual provision exists, the debtor will have to rely on the rules of general contract law and prove the following:

  1. It has become impossible (and not merely more onerous) for the debtor to perform the contract. Measures ordered by the Government that render it (legally – this is the so-called Fait du Prince – or practically) impossible to perform the obligations under the contract may amount to force majeure.

    However, mere negative advice given by the government to the public (such as negative travelling advice) may on the other hand not meet the high threshold of impossibility. Also, an obligation to pay money is in principle never impossible to perform.
     
  2. The force majeure event was unforeseeable at the time of the conclusion of the contract.
  3. The debtor could not reasonably avoid the force majeure event, nor was it the cause of this event.

It is evident that any of these requirements will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Force majeure will not exonerate a debtor if it was already in default before the event occurred and the creditor had put it on notice.

Please note that the above answers are based on the rules of general contract law and that in specific fields (e.g. travel contracts, air transport contracts, public procurement contracts etc.) specific rules may apply.

What happens if the impossibility caused by the force majeure event is temporary?

The debtor will be released temporarily from performing the contract until such performance has become possible again. In the meantime, the co-contractor may suspend the performance of its own obligations too.

However, if the parties can no longer usefully perform the contract when the impediment is lifted, e.g. because time was of the essence, the impossibility caused by the force majeure event must be deemed permanent (see next question).

What happens if the impossibility caused by the force majeure event is deemed permanent?

The force majeure event will definitively release both parties from performing their obligations. The agreement will automatically lapse (unless the contract can live on without the affected obligations).

For instance, as a service provider, you will not have to provide the service, but will, in principle, not be entitled to payment either. You will have to reimburse any advances you may have received to the extent that no services were rendered. However, under certain circumstances, other solutions may prevail. It should also be noted that specific rules apply regarding contracts transferring specific and ascertained property.

What steps should the debtor take when performing its contractual obligations has become impossible due to force majeure?

The debtor should notify its co-contractor (in writing) that force majeure precludes it from performing the contract, explain why it constitutes force majeure and indicate the ensuing consequences.

Moreover, the debtor must also take reasonable measures to mitigate the damage of its co-contractor.

Does a debtor still have to perform its obligations if such performance is not per se impossible, but merely (significantly) more onerous?

As pointed out above (see first question), the mere fact that obligations have become more onerous does not entitle a debtor to invoke force majeure under Belgian law. In some foreign jurisdictions, the opposite solution (known as the doctrine of hardship) is accepted, but hardship is not available under the Belgian rules of general contract law.

However, many contracts include hardship clauses.  In addition, if you can demonstrate that no reasonable person placed in the same circumstances would insist that a debtor performs certain obligations, a judge may rule that a co-contractor's insistence amounts to an abuse of right. The judge may then order it to act like a reasonable co-contractor.

A so-called “innocent" debtor (i.e. a debtor not responsible for its default) may always request a moderate grace period from the judge. It will never be automatically entitled to this, but the judge may freely decide on such a request and may be especially receptive to it in the current circumstances.

 

This article provides some general insights on different legal questions. These insights do not constitute legal advice and may not be relied upon as if they were legal advice. The outcome of any legal analysis will strongly depend both on the specific facts and circumstances of each case and on the particularities of the sector and legal relationship involved. Our legal experts in the various domains concerned are available to assist you with the analysis of your questions and provide specific advice tailored to your case and circumstances.

Team

Related news

08.07.2020 NL law
Dutch State breached duty of care in providing information to victims and surviving relatives of plane crash

Short Reads - Earlier this year, the District Court in The Hague ruled that the Dutch State is liable vis-à-vis the victims and surviving relatives of a 1992 plane crash in Faro, Portugal. The State was found liable because it is responsible for the information provided by the Dutch Aviation Safety Board (a government agency) to the victims and surviving relatives. This information, on the causes of the crash was deemed by the court to be incorrect and incomplete.

Read more

03.07.2020 NL law
E-book NOW-2: Second Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure Work Retention

Articles - On 17 March 2020, the Dutch cabinet announced the first emergency package of support measures to alleviate the economic consequences of the corona crisis. This emergency package inter alia comprised the First Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure for the purpose of Work Retention (“NOW-1”) and the Temporary Bridging Measure for Self-Employed Persons (“Tozo-1”).

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
Inwerkingtreding Tijdelijke Wet COVID-19 Justitie & Veiligheid

Short Reads - Op 24 april 2020 is de Tijdelijke Wet COVID-19 Justitie & Veiligheid (“de Noodwet”) in werking getreden. Aan de hand van de Noodwet kunnen rechtspersonen tijdelijk afwijken van wettelijke en statutaire bepalingen en kunnen bepaalde termijnen worden uitgesteld. De Noodwet is een antwoord op de beperkingen die gelden als gevolg van de uitbraak van COVID-19. De Tijdelijke wet COVID-19 Justitie en Veiligheid is een verzamelwet.

Read more

03.07.2020 NL law
E-book NOW-2: Tweede tijdelijke noodmaatregel overbrugging voor behoud van werkgelegenheid

Articles - Op 17 maart 2020 kondigde het kabinet het eerste noodpakket aan met steunmaatregelen om de economische gevolgen van de coronacrisis te dempen. Onderdeel van dit noodpakket zijn onder andere de Eerste tijdelijke noodmaatregel overbrugging voor behoud van werkgelegenheid (“NOW-1”) en de Tijdelijke overbruggingsregeling zelfstandige ondernemers (“Tozo-1”).

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
Actualiteiten bescherming Nederlandse ondernemingen

Short Reads - Het afgelopen half jaar zijn er verschillende ontwikkelingen geweest op het gebied van bescherming van Nederlandse ondernemingen. COVID-19 zorgde daarbij voor een stroomversnelling. De verslechterde economische situatie als gevolg van COVID-19 maakt dat ondernemingen sneller bloot kunnen komen te staan aan ongewenste overnames of investeringen. Het Kabinet biedt ondernemingen handvatten ter bescherming tegen ongewenste overnames en investeringen als de nationale veiligheid in het geding komt.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
Aansprakelijkheid van de Staat bij vliegtuigcrash in Faro

Articles - In haar uitspraak van 8 januari 2020 oordeelde Rechtbank Den Haag dat de Nederlandse Staat onrechtmatig heeft gehandeld jegens de slachtoffers en nabestaanden van de vliegramp in Faro (Portugal) in 1992, waarbij een Nederlands toestel was betrokken. De onrechtmatigheid is gelegen in onjuiste dan wel onvolledige informatieverstrekking over de oorzaken van deze vliegramp door de toenmalige Raad voor de Luchtvaart, inmiddels opgegaan in de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (‘Raad’). 

Read more