La Force Majeure Dissertation Definition

Les règles du Code civil fixant les sanctions encourues par une partie n'exécutant pas ses engagements sont clarifiées. Les effets de la force majeure sont revisités et la faculté pour un cocontractant de mettre fin unilatéralement au contrat consacrée.

1. Les règles en matière d’inexécution contractuelles figurant dans l'actuel Code civil sont éparses et incomplètes : exécution en nature traitée avec les obligations de faire et de ne pas faire, et les obligations de donner ; textes muets sur l’exception d’inexécution ; la résolution évoquée à l’occasion des obligations conditionnelles. Partant de ce constat, les auteurs de l'ordonnance du 10 février 2016 les ont regroupées dans une section unique, dont les dispositions s'appliqueront aux contrats conclus après le 1er octobre 2016 (voir La Quotidienne du 12 février 2016).

Liste des sanctions

2. Dans un esprit didactique, le nouvel article 1217 du Code civil liste les différentes sanctions de l’inexécution : la partie envers laquelle l'engagement n'a pas été exécuté, ou l'a été imparfaitement, peut refuser d’exécuter ou suspendre l'exécution de sa propre obligation, poursuivre l'exécution forcée en nature de l’obligation, solliciter une réduction du prix, provoquer la résolution du contrat, demander réparation des conséquences de l'inexécution.

Cet article ajoute que les sanctions compatibles peuvent être cumulées et que des dommages-intérêts peuvent s’y ajouter si les conditions de la responsabilité civile sont remplies.

Chacune de ces sanctions fait l’objet de dispositions particulières, dont certaines comportent des innovations par rapport au régime antérieur.

Inexécution due à un cas de force majeure

3. La force majeure, envisagée dès 1804 (ancien art. 1148) mais jamais définie par la loi, est désormais « l’événement échappant au contrôle du débiteur, qui ne pouvait être raisonnablement prévu lors de la conclusion du contrat et dont les effets ne peuvent être évités par des mesures appropriées » (C. civ. art. 1218 nouveau).

On retrouve ici les critères d’imprévisibilité et d’irrésistibilité retenus jusqu’alors par les tribunaux mais n’apparaît plus celui de l’extériorité de l’événement par rapport au débiteur, critère dont une partie de la jurisprudence avait maintenu l’exigence (Cass. soc. 16-5-2012 n° 10-17.726 : RJS 7/12 n° 627 ; Cass. 3e civ. 15-10-2013 n° 12-23.126 : RJDA 1/14 n° 9).

4. Plus novateur, l’article 1218 nouveau distingue les effets de la force majeure selon que l’empêchement d’exécuter qui en résulte est temporaire ou non. S’il l’est, l’exécution de l’obligation est suspendue à moins que le retard qui en résulterait ne justifie la résolution du contrat. Si l’empêchement est définitif, le contrat est résolu de plein droit et les parties sont libérées de leurs obligations.

Toutefois, le cocontractant défaillant n’est pas libéré s’il a accepté de se charger de l’impossibilité d’exécuter ou s’il a été mis en demeure de s’exécuter avant que survienne l’impossibilité (art. 1351 et 1351-1).

Exécution forcée en nature

5. Le créancier d'une obligation peut, après mise en demeure, en poursuivre l'exécution en nature sauf si cette exécution est impossible ou, c’est nouveau, s'il existe une disproportion manifeste entre son coût pour le débiteur et son intérêt pour le créancier (C. civ. art. 1221 nouveau).

6. Le créancier se voit aussi reconnaître le droit de faire exécuter lui-même l’obligation, après mise en demeure et dans un délai et à un coût raisonnable (art. 1222 nouveau), alors qu’une autorisation judiciaire était auparavant nécessaire (ancien art. 1144). L’intervention préalable du juge est maintenue pour la destruction de ce qui a été fait en violation de l’obligation et pour obliger le débiteur à avancer les sommes nécessaires pour l’exécution ou la destruction (art. précité).

Réduction du prix pour inexécution imparfaite

7. Après mise en demeure, le créancier peut accepter une exécution imparfaite du contrat et solliciter une réduction proportionnelle du prix ; s’il n’a pas encore payé, le créancier notifie sa décision de réduire le prix dans les meilleurs délais (art. 1223 nouveau). Selon le rapport au Président de la République, « il s’agit d’une sanction intermédiaire entre l’exception d’inexécution et la résolution, qui permet de procéder à une révision du contrat à hauteur de ce à quoi il a réellement été exécuté en lieu et place de ce qui était contractuellement prévu ».

8. La réduction du prix est déjà admise en matière de vente par des textes spéciaux (C. civ. art. 1644 au titre de la garantie des vices cachés ; C. civ. art. 1617 et 1674 pour défaut de contenance ou lésion en matière de vente immobilière ; C. consom. art. L 211-10 au titre de la garantie légale de conformité) et, en dehors de ces hypothèses, par les tribunaux mais seulement pour les ventes commerciales (Cass. 3e civ. 26-10-2011 n° 09-10.699 : RJDA 3/12 n° 273).

Ici, le texte est de portée générale et offre au créancier une possible réduction du prix sans devoir saisir le juge. Toutefois, créancier et débiteur pourront être en désaccord sur le caractère imparfait de la prestation ou sur la proportionnalité de la réduction du prix demandée (prix déjà payé) ou imposée (prix non encore versé) ; il incombera alors au juge de trancher.

Résolution du contrat

9. Les nouvelles dispositions sur la résolution du contrat (C. civ. art. 1224 à 1230 nouveaux) apportent des modifications substantielles.

En résumé :

  • - le terme « résolution » éclipse celui de « résiliation » dont l’usage est réservé à l’hypothèse où le juge résout le contrat sans ordonner la restitution des prestations déjà exécutées (art. 1129, al. 3 nouveau) ;
  • - le créancier peut, à ses risques et périls et après mise en demeure du débiteur défaillant, résoudre le contrat par voie de notification adressé à ce dernier en cas de persistance de l’inexécution (art. 1226 nouveau) ;
  • - la résolution peut, en toute hypothèse, être demandée en justice (art. 1227 nouveau) ;
  • - les prestations déjà échangées ne sont restituées que si elles ne trouvaient leur utilité que par l’exécution complète du contrat résolu (art. 1129, al. 3 nouveau) ;
  • - les clauses de règlement des différends (clause d’arbitrage, notamment), mais aussi les clauses de confidentialité et de non-concurrence survivent au contrat (art. 1230 nouveau).

For other uses, see Force majeure (disambiguation).

Force majeure (FORSS mah-ZHUR, -mə-ZHUR; French: [fɔʁs maʒœʁ]) – or vis major (Latin) – meaning "superior force", also known as cas fortuit (French) or casus fortuitus (Latin) "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident",[1] is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (hurricane, flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. In practice, most force majeure clauses do not excuse a party's non-performance entirely, but only suspend it for the duration of the force majeure.[2][3]

Force majeure is generally intended to include occurrences beyond the reasonable control of a party, and therefore would not cover:

  • Any result of the negligence or malfeasance of a party, which has a materially adverse effect on the ability of such party to perform its obligations.[4]
  • Any result of the usual and natural consequences of external forces.
    • To illuminate this distinction, take the example of an outdoor public event abruptly called off.
      • If the cause for cancellation is ordinary predictable rain, this is most probably not force majeure.
      • If the cause is a flash flood that damages the venue or makes the event hazardous to attend, then this almost certainly isforce majeure.
      • Some causes might be arguable borderline cases (for instance, if unusually heavy rain occurred, rendering the event significantly more difficult, but not impossible, to safely hold or attend); these must be assessed in light of the circumstances.
  • Any circumstances that are specifically contemplated (included) in the contract—for example, if the contract for the outdoor event specifically permits or requires cancellation in the event of rain.

Under international law, it refers to an irresistible force or unforeseen event beyond the control of a state making it materially impossible to fulfill an international obligation, and is related to the concept of a state of emergency.[5]

Purpose[edit]

Time-critical and other sensitive contracts may be drafted to limit the shield of this clause where a party does not take reasonable steps (or specific precautions) to prevent or limit the effects of the outside interference, either when they become likely or when they actually occur. A force majeure may work to excuse all or part of the obligations of one or both parties. For example, a strike might prevent timely delivery of goods, but not timely payment for the portion delivered.

A force majeure may also be the overpowering force itself, which prevents the fulfillment of a contract. In that instance, it is actually the impossibility or impracticability defenses.

In the military, force majeure has a slightly different meaning. It refers to an event, either external or internal, that happens to a vessel or aircraft that allows it to enter normally restricted areas without penalty. An example would be the Hainan Island incident where a U.S. Navy aircraft landed at a Chinese military airbase after a collision with a Chinese fighter in April 2001. Under the principle of force majeure, the aircraft must be allowed to land without interference.

The importance of the force majeure clause in a contract, particularly one of any length in time, cannot be overstated as it relieves a party from an obligation under the contract (or suspends that obligation). What is permitted to be a force majeure event or circumstance can be the source of much controversy in the negotiation of a contract and a party should generally resist any attempt by the other party to include something that should, fundamentally, be at the risk of that other party.[4] For example, in a coal-supply agreement, the mining company may seek to have "geological risk" included as a force majeure event; however, the mining company should be doing extensive exploration and analysis of its geological reserves and should not even be negotiating a coal-supply agreement if it cannot take the risk that there may be a geological limit to its coal supply from time to time. The outcome of that negotiation, of course, depends on the relative bargaining power of the parties and there will be cases where force majeure clauses can be used by a party effectively to escape liability for bad performance.

Because of the different interpretations of force majeure across legal systems, it is common for contracts to include specific definitions of force majeure, particularly at the international level. Some systems limit force majeure to an Act of God (such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) but exclude human or technical failures (such as acts of war, terrorist activities, labor disputes, or interruption or failure of electricity or communications systems). The advisory point is in drafting of contract make distinction between act of God and other shape of force majeure.

As a consequence, force majeure in areas prone to natural disaster requires a definition of the magnitude of the event for which force majeure could be considered as such in a contract. As an example, in a highly seismic area a technical definition of the amplitude of motion at the site could be established on the contract, based for example on probability of occurrence studies. This parameter or parameters can later be monitored at the construction site (with a commonly agreed procedure). An earthquake could be a small shaking or damaging event. The occurrence of an earthquake does not imply the occurrence of damage or disruption. For small and moderate events it is reasonable to establish requirements for the contract processes; for large events it is not always feasible or economical to do so. Concepts such as 'damaging earthquake' in force majeure clauses does not help to clarify disruption, especially in areas where there are no other reference structures or most structures are not seismically safe.[6]

Common law[edit]

English common law does not automatically apply force majeure principles to contracts. Parties to English law contracts who wish to have force majeure relief must spell out the terms in the contract.[7] Common law recognizes the concept of frustration of purpose, a narrower concept that applies when the actual performance of the contract is radically different from what the parties intended.[8]

As interpreted by English courts, the phrase force majeure has a more extensive meaning than "act of God" or vis major. Judges have agreed that strikes and breakdowns of machinery, which though normally not included in vis major, are included in force majeure. (However, in the case of machinery breakdown, negligent lack of maintenance may negate claims of force majeure, as maintenance or its lack is within the owner's sphere of control.)

The term cannot, however, be extended to cover bad weather, football matches, or a funeral: the English case of Matsoukis v. Priestman & Co (1915) held that "these are the usual incidents interrupting work, and the defendants, in making their contract, no doubt took them into account.... The words 'force majeure' are not words which we generally find in an English contract. They are taken from the Code Napoleon, and they were inserted by this Romanian gentleman or by his advisers, who were no doubt familiar with their use on the Continent." In Hackney Borough Council v. Dore (1922) it was held, "The expression means some physical or material restraint and does not include a reasonable fear or apprehension of such a restraint".

In re Dharnrajmal Gobindram v. Shamji Kalidas [All India Reporter 1961 Supreme Court (of India) 1285], it was held, "An analysis of ruling on the subject shows that reference to the expression is made where the intention is to save the defaulting party from the consequences of anything over which he had no control."

Civil law[edit]

France[edit]

For a defendant to invoke force majeure in French law, the event proposed as force majeure must pass three tests:

1. Externality 
The defendant must have nothing to do with the event's happening.
2. Unpredictability 
If the event could be foreseen, the defendant is obligated to have prepared for it.[9] Being unprepared for a foreseeable event leaves the defendant culpable. This standard is very strictly applied:
  • CE 9 April 1962, "Chais d’Armagnac": The Council of State adjudged that, since a flood had occurred 69 years before the one that caused the damage at issue, the latter flood was predictable.
  • Administrative Court of Grenoble, 19 June 1974, "Dame Bosvy": An avalanche was judged to be predictable since another had occurred around 50 years before.
3. Irresistibility 
The consequences of the event must have been unpreventable.

Other events that are candidates for force majeure in French law are hurricanes and earthquakes. Force majeure is a defense against liability and is applicable throughout French law. Force majeure and cas fortuit are distinct notions in French Law.

Germany[edit]

On the other hand, German law does differentiate between vis major (höhere Gewalt) and casus fortuitus (Zufall) but, like English, tends to lump them together under höhere Gewalt which seems conceptually synonymous with the common law interpretation of force majeure, comprehending both natural disasters and events such as strikes, civil unrest, and war. However, even in the event of force majeure, liability persists in the face of default by a debtor.[10]

Argentina[edit]

In Argentina, force majeure (fuerza mayor and caso fortuito) is defined by the Civil Code of Argentina in Article 512, and regulated in Article 513.[11] According to these articles, force majeure is defined by the following characteristics:[12]

  • an event that could not have been foreseen or if it could, an event that could not be resisted. From these, it can be said that some acts of nature can be predicted, but if their consequences cannot be resisted it can be considered force majeure.
  • externality: the victim was not related directly or indirectly to the causes of the event, e.g., if the act was a fire, or a strike
  • unpredictability: the event must had been originated after the cause of the obligation.
  • irresistibility: the victim cannot by any means overcome the effects.

In Argentina, Act of God can be used in Civil Responsibility regarding contractual or not contractual obligations.

UNIDROIT Principles[edit]

Article 7.1.7 of the UNIDROITPrinciples of International Commercial Contracts provides for a form of force majeure similar, but not identical, to the common law and civil law concepts of the term: relief from performance is granted "if that party proves that the non-performance was due to an impediment beyond its control and that it could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences."[13]

Sample clause[edit]

The following is an example of how force majeure might be described in a specific contract.

Clause 19. Force Majeure

A party is not liable for failure to perform the party's obligations if such failure is as a result of Acts of God (including fire, flood, earthquake, storm, hurricane or other natural disaster), war, invasion, act of foreign enemies, hostilities (regardless of whether war is declared), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power or confiscation, terrorist activities, nationalisation, government sanction, blockage, embargo, labor dispute, strike, lockout or interruption or failure of electricity or telephone service. No party is entitled to terminate this Agreement under Clause 17 (Termination) in such circumstances.

If a party asserts Force Majeure as an excuse for failure to perform the party's obligation, then the nonperforming party must prove that the party took reasonable steps to minimize delay or damages caused by foreseeable events, that the party substantially fulfilled all non-excused obligations, and that the other party was timely notified of the likelihood or actual occurrence of an event described in Clause 19 (Force Majeure).

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Sources[edit]

  • Mitra's Legal & Commercial Dictionary. Pages 350–351. 4th Edn. Eastern Law House. ISBN 978-81-7177-015-1.
  • International Business Law and Its Environment. Schaffer, Agusti, Earle. Page 154. 7th Edn. 2008. South-Western Legal Studies in Business Academic. ISBN 978-0-324-64967-3.

External links[edit]

  1. ^Royal Institute of Thailand. (n.d.). Word Coinage by the Royal Institute of Thailand. accessed 18 March 2008.
  2. ^"Amazon.com: International Business Law and Its Environment, Eighth Edition (South-Western Legal Studies in Business Academic Series) (9780538473613): Richard Schaffer, Filiberto Agusti, Lucien J. Dhooge, Beverley Earle: Books". amazon.com. 
  3. ^Principle of Force Majeure (including international references), Trans-Lex.org
  4. ^ abPublic-Private Partnership in Infrastructure Resource Center (October 2012). "Force majeure definition and checklist". World Bank. 
  5. ^""Force majeure" and "Fortuitous event" as circumstances precluding wrongfulness: Survey of State practice, international judicial decisions and doctrine - study prepared by the Secretariat"(PDF). Yearbook of the International Law Commission. 1978. Retrieved 16 September 2015. 
  6. ^(Spanish) Force Majeure Construction and EarthquakesArchived 2008-09-10 at the Wayback Machine.
  7. ^Tadros, Rania (3 October 2014). "Force majeure: Update in light of recent developments". Ince & Co. Retrieved 16 September 2015. 
  8. ^"Force Majeure Clauses"(PDF). DLA Piper. 2011. Retrieved 16 September 2015. 
  9. ^"Terms & Conditions". Lufthansa. Retrieved 2013-03-26. 
  10. ^Schuldnerverzug, cf. BGB§287 (in German)Archived 2007-09-26 at the Wayback Machine.) or deprivation of property (Sachentziehung, cf. BGB§848 (in German)Archived 2007-09-26 at the Wayback Machine.)
  11. ^http://www.infoleg.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/105000-109999/109481/texact.htm (In Spanish)
  12. ^Alterini, Ameal, Lopez Cabana "Derecho De Obligaciones" (In Spanish)
  13. ^"UNIDROIT Principles 2010 - Article 7.1.7". UNIDROIT. Retrieved 16 September 2015. 

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *