Force Majeure Pandemic Disputes.
1. Understanding Force Majeure
Force Majeure refers to unforeseeable events beyond the control of parties in a contract, which prevent one or both parties from performing their contractual obligations. Typical clauses excuse performance in events like:
Natural disasters (floods, earthquakes)
War or political upheaval
Epidemics or pandemics (recently COVID-19)
Key Elements:
Unforeseeable Event: The event must be unexpected at the time of contract formation.
Beyond Control: The party invoking it should have no control over the event.
Prevention of Performance: The event must directly prevent contractual performance.
Notification Requirement: Usually, parties must notify the other party in a timely manner.
Pandemic as Force Majeure:
A pandemic like COVID-19 can qualify if the contract specifically mentions “epidemics, pandemics, or government actions” as force majeure events. Even if not mentioned, courts may interpret events like government-mandated lockdowns as frustrating contractual obligations.
2. Pandemic Disputes and Force Majeure
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many contracts were disrupted. Common disputes included:
Non-payment of rents and lease obligations
Delay or suspension of supply contracts
Cancellation of events (concerts, conferences)
Employment and service contracts
The main legal question: Does the pandemic excuse contractual non-performance under force majeure or frustration doctrines?
3. Key Legal Principles from Case Law
A. Indian Context
Energy Watchdog vs. CERC (2017) 14 SCC 80
Principle: Force majeure clauses are interpreted strictly; mere difficulty or economic hardship does not qualify.
Relevance to Pandemic: If COVID-19 merely makes performance expensive, it does not automatically excuse the party. Only prevention counts.
Gulf Oil Corporation vs. Khimji Ramdas & Co. AIR 1956 Mad 121
Principle: Commercial impossibility arising from unforeseen events can invoke force majeure, provided it is not due to negligence of the party.
Pandemic Relevance: Lockdowns preventing delivery or operations could invoke this principle.
Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd vs. Minglani Hotels Pvt Ltd, (2020)
Principle: Pandemic-related restrictions may temporarily excuse performance, but parties must mitigate damages and communicate promptly.
B. International Jurisprudence
Transatlantic Financing Corp. v. United States, 363 F.2d 312 (2d Cir. 1966, US)
Principle: Force majeure excuses performance only if the event makes performance impossible, not just more difficult or costly.
Pandemic Relevance: Lockdowns that prevent shipment or manufacturing may qualify.
Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826 (UK)
Principle: Early landmark case introducing the doctrine of frustration.
Pandemic Relevance: If an unforeseen event (like COVID-19) destroys the foundation of the contract, the contract may be discharged.
Canary Wharf Ltd v. European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 3352 (UK)
Principle: A contractual impossibility due to government action can qualify as force majeure.
Pandemic Relevance: Government-mandated closures or travel bans are similar scenarios.
4. Drafting Tips for Pandemic-Related Force Majeure Clauses
Explicitly include “epidemics, pandemics, public health emergencies, government lockdowns”.
Define notice requirements and timelines for invoking force majeure.
Clarify whether suspension or termination is allowed.
Include mitigation obligations — parties must attempt to reduce losses.
5. Practical Takeaways
Force majeure does not cover mere economic hardship or inconvenience.
Parties must prove direct causation — COVID-19 or lockdown prevented performance.
Courts may interpret clauses strictly if the language is vague.
Alternative remedies (rescheduling, partial performance) are often encouraged.
Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle | Pandemic Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy Watchdog v. CERC | India | Strict interpretation; hardship ≠ excuse | COVID-19 costs alone not enough |
| Gulf Oil Corp v. Khimji Ramdas | India | Unforeseen events excuse performance | Lockdown preventing delivery |
| Fomento Resorts v. Minglani Hotels | India | Communication and mitigation required | Temporary relief during pandemic |
| Transatlantic Financing Corp v. US | US | Impossibility required | Supply chain disruptions |
| Taylor v. Caldwell | UK | Doctrine of frustration | Contracts rendered impossible |
| Canary Wharf v. EMA | UK | Govt action can trigger FM | Lockdowns and bans |
Force majeure in pandemic disputes remains context-specific. Courts examine:
Contract language
Direct causation
Mitigation efforts
Unforeseeability
Proper drafting and proactive communication are key to avoiding litigation.
RELATED Blog
comments