header-logo header-logo

Force of nature

02 June 2011 / Alison Mayfield
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Alison Mayfield examines the frustrations of force majeure

The common law doctrine of frustration comes into play when a contract becomes impossible to perform, or can only be performed in a way that is substantially different from what was originally set out in the contract. The effect is that the parties to the contract will be excused from further performance under the contract. However, frustration only applies in the absence of an express provision by the parties dealing with such events. Such a clause is usually called a force majeure clause.

What is force majeure?

Force majeure is literally translated as: superior forces. In common language it is an unexpected and disruptive event that may operate to excuse a party from their obligations under a contract. Force majeure is only recognised in English law if it is specifically provided for in the terms of a contract.

Why have a force majeure clause?

The purpose of a force majeure clause is to define, more or less precisely, the circumstances in which a party

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll