Civil and contractual liabilities for the nonperformance of the contracts due to the changed circumstances such as the appearance of COVID-19

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor of Law, Shahid Beheshti University

2 Tehran

Abstract

Some contractual obligations might without the default of either party become incapable of being performed. The reason for this might be different. It might be because of difficulties for performance, or impossibility or frustration of the contract or even financially not recommended performance. Unforeseeable circumstances may also render the undertaken obligations unperformed. The question under this Article is to show how different systems of law tackle these problems. There is no doubt that the rights and duties of the contractual parties would be affected under such situations, many big companies might run into bankruptcy and something should be done to ease the parties relations. The ideology of law makers will certainly affect the responsibilities of the parties, which is dealt with here. More important than this is to provide that every theory which firstly creates equilibrium between the rights and duties of the parties and secondly keeps the previous balances of the parties undertakings at the time of conclusion of the contract or the appearance of an act or in-act by which the obligations are created by the legislature. Contracts should be kept alive as much as possible. The civil liabilities and contractual obligations which meet these requirements should be reinforced and performed for the benefit of the parties to the disputes and the society as a whole.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
1)      Aderinboye, Adeniyi, The Legal Effect of Coronavirus Epidemic on the Doctrine of Force Majeure in Commercial Contracts; The Lagos-Ibadan Rail Project Example (March 31, 2020).
2)      Baffi, Enrico and Nardi, Dario, The Contractual Liability Function: Efficient Breach Theory or Best Risk Bearer Theory? The Two Theories Tested by the Commercial Impracticability Doctrine in the Italian Legal System (February 10, 2017). The Cardozo Electronic Law Bullettin, Vol. 22, Issue 1.
3)      Berger, Klaus Peter and Behn, Daniel, (April 20, 2020) Force Majeure and Hardship in the Age of Corona: A Historical and Comparative Study. 6 McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution (2019/2020) Number 4, pages 79-130.
4)      Camero, Jennifer, Mission Impracticable: The Impossibility of Commercial Impracticability (June 12, 2014). 13 U.N.H. L. Rev. (2014, Forthcoming). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2449566 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2449566
5)      Chung, Gordon, A Comparative Analysis of the Frustration Rule: Possibility of Reconciliation between Hong Kong-English ‘Hands-Off Approach’ and German ‘Interventionist Mechanism’ (April 13, 2017). 25 European Review of Private Law, Issue 1, pp. 109–142.
6)      Crespi, Gregory S., Frustration of Purpose as An Excuse for the Non-Performance of Contractual Obligations Impacted by the Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic and by Pandemic-Related Governmental Restrictions: Some Preliminary Thoughts (May 20, 2020). SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 471.
7)      Davis Contractors Ltd. v. Fareham U.D.C. [1956] A.C. 696, 727 et seq. as noted in Horn, op cit, p. 21.
8)      Fibrosa Spolka v. Fairbairn, Lawson, Ltd. [1943] A.C. 32 as mentioned in Horn, op cit, p. 21.
9)      Gore, Kiran Nasir and Camp, Charles, (March 1, 2020), The Coronavirus: Business Risks, Liabilities, and Force Majeure in the Face of a Global Health Crisis, The World Financial Review March/April 2020.
10)  Grady, Mark F. (February 19, 2013), Causation and Foreseeability, Research Handbook on the Economic Analysis of Torts, Jennifer H. Arlen, ed., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013; UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 13-03.
11)  Hoag, Foley, A French revolution: Hardship finds its way into the Civil Code,
12)  Horn, Norbert, Changes in Circumstances and the Revision of contracts in Some European Laws and in International Law, in: horn (ed.), Adaption and Recognition of Contracts in International Trade and Finances, Antwerp, Boston London, Frankfurt a. M. 1985, p. 17.
13)  Howell v. Coupland (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 462.
14)  Kum, Ekia Gilbert, How Does the Change of Equilibrium between the Allocation of Risk, Hardship and the Impossibility Doctrines Affect the Parties to an International Sale of Goods Contract, under the Provisions of the CISG, UNIDROIT Principles, the ICC and the English and French Laws? (September 30, 2019).
15)  Lookofsky, Joseph, Revocability, Unconscionability and Impracticability in American, Danish and International Law (2018). Festskrift til Mads Bryde Andersen. Udsen, Christensen, Hansen, Iversen, Nielsen eds. Copenhagen 2018.
16)  Mazzacano, Peter J., Force Majeure, Impossibility, Frustration & the Like: Excuses for Non-Performance; the Historical Origins and Development of an Autonomous Commercial Norm in the CISG (January 10, 2012). Nordic Journal of Commercial Law, No. 2, 2011.
17)  Piper, S. Tina, The Improvisational Flavour of Law, the Legal Taste of Improvisation (June 15, 2010). (2010) 6(1) Critical Studies in Improvisation 1.
18)  Richard W. Bentham, Question of Hardship in Transnational Agreement, Foreign Investment in Present and a New International Economic Order, University of Fribourg Switzerland, 1987, p.171.
19)  Roberts, Marcus, Frustration in New Zealand's Supreme Court: A Return of Failure of Consideration? (June 1, 2014). [2014] LMCLQ 305.
20)  Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 B. & S. 826, 122 Eng. Rep. 309.
21)  Twigg-Flesner, Christian, (April 22, 2020) A Comparative Perspective on Commercial Contracts and the Impact of Covid-19 - Change of Circumstances, Force Majeure, or What? Pistor, Katharina, "Law in the Time of COVID-19" (2020). https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/240
22)  Van Boom, Willem H., Impossibility, Impracticability and Unforeseen Circumstances (March 25, 2020)
23)  William W. Melryde, Frustration of Contract, London, Juridical Review, 1990, vol.25, p.3.
24)  Zipursky, Benjamin C., Foreseeability in Breach, Duty and Proximate Cause (May 6, 2010). Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 1247, 2009; Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1601303.
Legal Research Quarterly
Volume 23, LAW and COVID- 19
September 2020
Pages 59-89

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 June 2020
  • Revise Date: 29 July 2020
  • Accept Date: 02 September 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics