Business advice: Effects of COVID-19 on Contractual Performance in China
The Basics of Force Majeure in the PRC Force majeure in the general sense of an unforeseen circumstance preventing contractual performance is a well-known legal concept around the world, but its codification in the PRC contrasts with looser frameworks in other jurisdictions. Thus, as a starting point, while some jurisdictions may excuse a party’s performance of a contract on the basis of force majeure only if and to the extent the contract contains an express provision for it, all contracts subject to China’s jurisdiction effectively contain such a provision by operation of law. Specifically, according to Article 117 of the Contract Law of the PRC, barring certain exceptions, any party may be exempted from liability for, and to the extent of, an inability to perform a contractual obligation due to circumstances that were objectively unforeseeable, unavoidable and insurmountable. Basic examples of force majeure relief include the following: A seller may argue that the COVID-19 outbreak excuses it from a contractual obligation to deliver certain goods. A contractor may seek exemption from liability for abandoning or delaying a construction project. However, the existence of a force majeure event will not automatically, under PRC law, exempt a party of its obligation to perform a contract. First, an express force majeure provision in a contract can at least to a certain extent modify or prevail over the application of Article 117 of the Contract Law of the PRC. Second, to the extent Article 117 does apply, it has preconditions, including that the triggering event be “unforeseeable”, “unavoidable” and “insurmountable”. Third, Article 118 of the same law requires the party claiming force majeure to timely notify its counterparty and provide proof of the force majeure event within a reasonable time. Fourth, a valid force majeure will exempt performance/liability only to the extent it has caused a party’s inability to perform. The Novel Coronavirus / Force Majeure in the PRC and Beyond China’s government in recent weeks has been taking steps to clarify its framework for force majeure, on the one hand seemingly strengthening the basis for a party to claim the exemption while on the other hand possibly reinforcing some of its limitations. As an initial matter, the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (“CCPIT”), an organization with ties to the government, has reportedly issued thousands of so-called “force majeure certificates” to companies claiming inability, under the current situation, to perform contracts (worth hundreds of billions of RMB). The particulars and effectiveness of these certificates, reminiscent of certificates issued during and after the SARS outbreak in 2003, are far from certain, despite the CCPIT’s assertions that they would apply to support invocation of force majeure even in jurisdictions other than the PRC. While they would not satisfy all the conditions for force majeure exemption under PRC law, they may be taken into consideration by PRC courts, e.g., going towards the proof of force majeure an affected party is required to provide under Article 118 of the Contract Law of the PRC. More significantly, a spokesperson for the Legislative Affairs Commission of the PRC National People’s Congress Standing Committee stated that the virus outbreak and the PRC government’s measures in response to the outbreak should be deemed force majeure under PRC law. The Higher People’s Courts in most provinces and municipalities have also issued special guidelines in this respect. In addition to reiterating the basics of force majeure as described above and repeating that the outbreak and government response constitute force majeure, they reinforce some further avenues for relief, e.g., suspension of a statute of limitations if a relevant claim cannot be made in a timely manner because of the present situation. At the same time, the Legislative Affairs Commission and Higher People’s Courts have not only indicated that the basic framework for force majeure still applies but have also reinforced its limitations. Major points of note include the following: An existing contractual provision on force majeure may take precedence over default PRC law. An affected party must promptly provide, to its counterparty, notice and proof of the force majeure event, including details specific to the party and the health situation at the party’s place of business. Force majeure relief should be presumed not available in certain circumstances, e.g.,- when the contract was concluded after the COVID-19 outbreak;
- when performance was delayed, or not carried out at all, before the outbreak; or
- the obligation/liability to be exempted is purely a monetary one.
- what affects may non-performance have on the relationship with counterparties (upstream and downstream);
- which obligations in particular are affected and to what extent are they affected by the outbreak, the government response or some other aspect of the situation; to what extent can the non-performance be avoided, the impediment(s) overcome or the consequences mitigated;
- would insurance cover potential liability for non-performance; and
- when should notice be given and what should it specify?
- has the counterparty provided the requisite notice and evidence regarding the force majeure;
- how strong is not only a claim for breach of contract but also the ability to recover from the counterparty?
- what roll-on effects will non-performance cause and can they be avoided;
- would insurance cover potential liability for non-performance; and
- what, if anything, should be communicated (in response) to the counterparty?