Cover PageStudent Name Saranda CunakuStudent Number 509815 Assignment Name Force Majeure and Hardship Clauses in United States of America and FranceWord Count (excluding foontotes) 1536Contents TOC o “1-3” h z u Cover Page PAGEREF _Toc526012611 h 1I.
General overview PAGEREF _Toc526012612 h 1II.Force Majeure in France and in the United States of America PAGEREF _Toc526012613 h 2III.Hardship in France and in the United States of America PAGEREF _Toc526012614 h 3IV.
Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc526012615 h 6Bibliography PAGEREF _Toc526012616 h 7Force Majeure and Hardship Clauses in United States of America and FranceGeneral overview International commercial contractual relationships’ importance lays in the specification of the rights and obligations between the parties, so no issues or complications among parties occur at the later stages.The highly controversial issue whether a party should be exempted from performance of the contract opposes the well-known principle of pacta sunt servanda, binding the parties to their undertaken obligations. Nonetheless, there have been cases where such exemption has taken place.The relation between such concepts has been specifically addressed by general contract law principles such as in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UPICC), Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), etc.
However, differences in approaches towards non-performance of contract are particularly encountered among common and civil law systems. This paper will provide a comparison of this matter between the United States of America as a common law country and France as a civil law country. In more precise terms, the concepts of force majeure and hardship as exemption grounds for the non-performance of a contract will be examined in each of them. Force Majeure in France and in the United States of AmericaFrench law represents the crib of force majeure, with its roots on the Roman doctrine of vis major. At the present time, the exemption from contractual obligations in basis of force majeure is regulated under Article 1218 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. The aforementioned provision states that “In contractual matters, there is force majeure where an event beyond the control of the debtor, which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract and whose effects could not be avoided by appropriate measures, prevents performance of his obligation by the debtor”. On the other hand, as noted by DiMatteo “Anything within the nonperforming party’s sphere of control or allocated risk cannot be a reason to grant an excuse”.
On the contrary, in the United States of America the concept of force majeure and hardship is not recognized. In the American legal system, such doctrines are known with the term “commercial impracticability”. Such notion is established in Section 2- 615 (a) of the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code.
The aforementioned section entails a threefold test which needs to be satisfied in order for the performance of contract to be considered impracticable. These tests include the manifestation of an impediment which makes impossible for a party to complete its contractual obligation, and for which at the time of the contracting the parties could not have made such impediment anticipation. The non-requirement for non-performance of an impossible obligation was not firstly recognized in common law countries. As such, even now, the application of exemption on basis of force majeure is limited to only when and in those force majeure circumstances for which the parties agreed specifically to be considered.
When it comes to the strict and limited application of the provisions to excuse non-performance of contractual obligations in the Unites States, it is worth to take notice of the case between Raw Materials Inc. v Manfred Forberich GmbH ; Co. decided by the Northern District Court of Illinois in 2004. The parties of this contract had agreed in the delivery of an amount of railroad rail. The seller had failed to complete such delivery due to severe winter weather conditions that had closed the port from which the delivery was to be made. The seller argued on basis of force majeure but in the nonexistence of such clause in the contract, the Court by applying CISG for which the parties had agreed, determined that such claim was not satisfied. Hence, the Court held that the seller was liable and evaluated that the weather circumstances claimed as force majeure by the seller were in fact usual. Hardship in France and in the United States of AmericaHardship refers to those situations when the performance of the contract obligations for one of the parties becomes excessively burdensome.
Consequently, in such circumstances the latter party will have the right to request the renegotiation of the contract.The main difference between the United States of America and France with regards to hardship is that while the French legal system recognizes such concept, the United States does not. As explained above, the American legal system refers to it with the term of commercial impracticability.Likewise the doctrine of force majeure, in France, hardship is regulated under the French Code of Civil Procedure. Article 1195 of the French Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that “If a change of circumstances that was unforeseeable at the time of the conclusion of the contract renders performance excessively onerous for a party who had not accepted the risk of such a change, that party may ask the other contracting party to renegotiate the contract. The first party must continue to perform his obligations during renegotiation”.
This view has been affirmed in 2004 by French case law, precisely the French Court of Appeal, in the case of Société Romay AG v. SARL Behr France. The circumstances of this case involved an agreement between the parties for the delivery of a specific amount of crankcases. Due to fluctuations in the market, the price of goods had dropped at fifty percent lower than the price which it was agreed for the purchase between the parties initially. Ruling the CISG applicable, the Court concluded that the fluctuation of prices in the market was not a valid reason for exemption of completion of contractual obligations due to the fact that such risk should have been considered at the time of the contract conclusion.Whereas, Section 2615 of the Uniform Commercial Code regulates commercial impracticability in the United States of America, it is worth to note that similarly to the French legal system, in the American legal system the fluctuation of market prices is not justified unless it is considered to be more than onerous. To illustrate, in the case of Maple Farms v.
City School District of Elmira decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that the fact that there had been a 23% increase in the price of milk was not sufficient to make the contract impracticable. As such, for a court to decide that there has been an unforeseen event within the parameters of price increases or market fluctuations there should not be such elevations in the recent past. Moreover, it is considered that the fluctuation of prices is an issue which should be taken into consideration by the supplier at the time of the contract conclusion. Consequently; if such conditions are not fulfilled exemption for nonperformance will not be provided. In addition, Section 2615 (b) of the Uniform Commercial Code goes a step further and it provides for parties’ potential duties in those situations when the capability to perform is not fully impeded.
As such, the Section provides for allocations which can be done in different ways, i.e. in pro rata basis, prospect contractual dealings with steady clienteles or in any other way which would be deemed to guarantee fairness.Conclusion The occurrence of unanticipated circumstances during a contractual relationship may influence the path towards the success or the failure of such transaction.
In cases of unforeseen and outside the control of parties’ circumstances, courts and tribunals may excuse a party for the non-performance of contractual obligations. Even though such exemptions go against the principle of sanctity of contracts or pacta sunt servanda, they do provide for a ‘shelter’ of fairness for the party having it impossible to perform due to impossibility or in cases when the performance of contract is excessively onerous. When impossibility to perform is established, courts and tribunals will release the disadvantageous party from the undertaken contractual obligations, whereas in cases of hardship when the fulfillment of obligation is extremely difficult to complete, renegotiation of the contract may take place.Since different approaches are encountered in common law and civil law countries’, the inclusion of force majeure and hardship clauses in the contract provides for the needed space for the courts and tribunals to evaluate the circumstances. If not done so, then it is probable, especially for courts in common law jurisdictions, to be hesitant to apply such concepts.
The burden of proof for unforeseen circumstances falls within the party that makes such claim. Generally, in the United States of America and France the threshold to prove such circumstances will be high. Based on the case law provided in this text it can be observed that exemption based on such circumstances will be in special circumstances. Hence, no release from contractual obligations will occur when such situation or risk could have been taken into account at the time the parties concluded a contract. Similarly, courts in both countries will not deem as exceptional circumstances price fluctuations in market. In this regard, the United States of America case law provides for the fluctuations prices to be severe or otherwise such unforeseen events will not be justified at all. BibliographyLegislation:United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) CISGUnidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016The Principles of European Contract Law 2002French Code of Civil ProcedureUniform Commercial Code (USA) 2002Cases:Raw Materials Inc v Manfred Forberich GmbH & Co 2004 Illinois District Court 03 C1154, 2004 1 <http://cisgw3.law.
pace.edu/cases/040706u1.html#cx> accessed 28 September 2018Société Romay AG v SARL Behr France 2004 Appeals Court Y 01 15964 2004 1 <http://cisgw3.
law.pace.edu/cases/040630f1.html#cx> accessed 28 September 2018Transatlantic Fin. Corp. v. United States 1966 Appeals Court, District of Columbia 363 F 2d 312 1966 <https://casetext.
com/case/transatlantic-fin-corp-v-united-states> accessed 28 September 2018Maple Farms Inc.v City School District of Elmira 1974 Supreme Court 76 Misc. 2d 1080 1974 1 <https://casetext.
com/case/maple-farms-v-city-sch-dist> accessed 29 September 2018 Journal articles: Maskow D, “Hardship and Force Majeure” (1992) Am J Comp L 657 <https://www.trans-lex.org/126400/_/maskow-dietrich-hardship-and-force-majeure-40-amjcompl-1992-at-657-et-seq/> accessed 28 September 2018Schwenzer I, “Force majeure and hardship in international sales contracts” (2009) Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 709 <https://wwwheinonlineorg.
eur.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?lname=&public=false&handle=hein.journals/vuwlr39&page=709&collection=journals> accessed 28 September 2018Brunner C, Force Majeure and Hardship under General Contract Principles: Exemption for Non-performance in International Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2009) 1 <http://www.kluwerarbitration.com.
eur.idm.oclc.org/booktoc?toc=TOC_Brunner_2009_V04> accessed 28 September 2018Tessema Y, “Force Majeure and the Doctrine of Frustration under the UNIDOROIT Principle, CISG, PECL and the Ethiopian Law of Sales: Comparative Analysis” (2017) Journal of Law Policy and Globalization 33- 34 <https://wwwheinonlineorg.
eur.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jawpglob58&div=7&start_page=33&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults> accessed 28 September 2018DiMatteo L, “Contractual Excuse Under the CISG: Impediment, Hardship, and the Excuse Doctrines” (2015) Volume 27 Pace International Law Review 268, 277 <https://core.ac.
uk/download/pdf/46713357.pdf> accessed 28 September 2018Amkhan A, “Force Majeure and Impossibility of Performance in Arab Contract Law” (1991) Volume 6 Arab Law Quarterly 1 <http://booksandjournals.brillonline.
1163/157302591×00359> accessed 28 September 2018Mazzacano P, “Force Majeure, Impossibility, Frustration & the Like: Excuses for Non-Performance; the Historical Origins and Development of an Autonomous Commercial Norm in the CISG” (2012) Nordic Journal of Commercial Law 12 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228204507_Force_Majeure_Impossibility_Frustration_the_Like_Excuses_for_NonPerformance_the_Historical_Origins_and_Development_of_an_Autonomous_Commercial_Norm_in_the_CISG> accessed 28 September 2018Liu C, “Changed Contract Circumstances” (2005) 3 <http://www.cisg.law.
pace.edu/cisg/biblio/liu5.html#cl26> accessed 28 September 2018Harold Ulman, “Enforcement of Hardship Clauses in the French and American Legal Systems” (1988) California Western International Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 1 Article 6 92 <https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1467&context=cwilj> accessed 29 September 2018