Force Majeure Partial Relief Issues
Force Majeure Partial Relief Issues
Force majeure does not always operate as a complete excuse from contractual performance. In many cases, courts and arbitral tribunals recognize partial relief, meaning that the affected party may be excused only to the extent performance is prevented, while remaining obligations continue.
This creates complex legal issues involving divisibility of obligations, allocation of risk, causation, and mitigation.
1. Concept of Partial Relief in Force Majeure
Partial relief arises where:
A force majeure event affects only part of the contractual obligations, or
Performance is hindered but not entirely prevented, or
Only some contractual routes or methods are disrupted
Key Principle:
Force majeure suspends or excuses performance only to the extent of actual impact, not beyond.
2. Legal Foundations
Partial relief is rooted in:
(a) Contractual Interpretation
Courts examine:
Words like “prevented,” “hindered,” or “delayed”
Whether the clause allows partial suspension
(b) Doctrine of Severability
If obligations are divisible, unaffected parts must still be performed.
(c) Proportionality Principle
Relief must be proportionate to the disruption caused.
3. Categories of Partial Relief
(i) Quantitative Partial Relief
Reduced supply obligations (e.g., deliver 60% instead of 100%)
(ii) Temporal Partial Relief
Delay rather than discharge
(iii) Modal Partial Relief
Performance must continue via alternative methods
4. Key Legal Issues in Partial Relief
(1) Divisibility of Contract
Can obligations be separated?
Entire vs divisible contracts
(2) Threshold of Impact
“Prevented” → stricter (no performance possible)
“Hindered” → broader (performance more difficult)
(3) Allocation of Remaining Risk
Who bears loss for the unaffected portion?
(4) Interaction with Mitigation
Parties must still perform unaffected parts
5. Leading Case Laws on Partial Relief
1. Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd (1918)
Principle: Suspension vs total discharge.
Contract halted due to war orders.
House of Lords treated it as frustration (total discharge), but emphasized that if partial continuation were possible, obligations would persist.
2. Tennants (Lancashire) Ltd v G.S. Wilson & Co Ltd (1917)
Principle: Partial impossibility does not excuse total non-performance.
War disrupted supply chain.
Court held seller must fulfill obligations to the extent possible.
3. Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Vanden Avenne Izegem PVBA (1978)
Principle: Force majeure suspends performance, not necessarily terminates.
Delay in performance due to export restrictions.
House of Lords recognized temporary/partial relief, not total discharge.
4. Classic Maritime Inc v Limbungan Makmur SDN BHD (2019)
Principle: Relief limited to actual causal impact.
Dam collapse cited as force majeure.
Court held that even partial relief fails if performance would not have occurred anyway.
5. Seadrill Ghana Operations Ltd v Tullow Ghana Ltd (2018)
Principle: Obligation continues where partial performance is possible.
Operational issues affected drilling.
Tribunal held that only the affected portion could be excused.
6. RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV (2022)
Principle: Partial relief denied where alternative performance is possible.
Sanctions affected USD payments.
Court required acceptance of EUR payment, meaning no partial suspension allowed.
7. Channel Island Ferries Ltd v Sealink UK Ltd (1988)
Principle: Partial relief depends on mitigation and alternatives.
Ferry access restricted but alternatives existed.
Court rejected full relief; partial performance was expected.
6. Drafting Challenges
Poorly drafted clauses create disputes over:
Whether partial relief is allowed at all
Whether obligations are divisible
Whether reduced performance is acceptable
Well-Drafted Clause Should Include:
Express provision for partial suspension
Mechanism for apportionment of obligations
Duty to continue unaffected performance
Adjustment of payments and timelines
7. Practical Scenarios
(A) Supply Chain Disruption
مصنع can produce only 50% output
→ Must deliver 50%, not zero
(B) Logistics Blockage
One shipping route blocked
→ Must use alternative route if viable
(C) Regulatory Restrictions
Export ban in one country
→ Supply from alternative jurisdiction if possible
8. Interaction with Other Doctrines
(i) Frustration
Applies only if entire contract becomes impossible
Partial impossibility → usually not frustration
(ii) Hardship
In civil law, may allow renegotiation instead of partial suspension
9. Burden of Proof
The party claiming partial relief must prove:
The force majeure event occurred
It affected only part of performance
The extent of impact is quantifiable
Reasonable steps were taken to perform remaining obligations
10. Risks in Partial Relief Situations
Disputes over extent of reduction
Pricing conflicts (full price vs reduced output)
Opportunistic non-performance
Difficulty in proving degree of impact
11. Judicial Trend
Modern courts favor:
Narrow application of total relief
Preference for partial enforcement of contracts
Emphasis on commercial continuity
12. Conclusion
Force majeure is not an “all-or-nothing” doctrine. Courts increasingly treat it as a scalpel, not a hammer, granting relief precisely aligned with the disruption caused.
The governing rule is:
If part of the contract can still be performed, it must be performed.
Thus, partial relief reflects a broader judicial policy:
Preserve contracts where possible
Allocate risk fairly
Prevent abuse of force majeure clauses
RELATED Blog
comments