Subject to clause [ ], if a Party wishes to seek protection in respect of a case of force majeure, it shall, subject to clause [ ], inform the other Party of the nature and expected duration of such force majeure event as soon as possible after the occurrence or commencement date of such force majeure and keep the other Party informed thereafter; until it is able to fulfil its obligations. The parties will use reasonable efforts to: Under Texas law, parties wishing to invoke a force majeure clause to excuse non-performance shall not exercise due diligence under Texas law to perform or overcome the force majeure event, except as expressly provided in a contract. [12] However, where the parties have entered into contracts in this regard, determining whether a party has exercised due diligence is factually demanding and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. [13] “Due diligence” is defined in Texas law as “such diligence that a normally prudent and diligent person would exercise in similar circumstances. [14] Companies that wish to invoke the force majeure clause in their contracts are likely to have a strong argument that the coronavirus outbreak is an unforeseen event, unless the parties concluded the contract after the coronavirus outbreak. Whether companies have also tried to fulfill their contractual obligations despite the coronavirus outbreak, and whether this is even necessary as part of a particular contract, are issues that need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Businesses around the world are struggling to gain productivity because employees are self-quarantining to avoid the risk of exposure to the coronavirus (COVID-19) and because facilities are closed to slow the spread of the virus. In this context, many companies are now trying to determine whether they are obliged to perform under their contracts or whether they can invoke a force majeure clause to excuse performance temporarily or even permanently. Below, we review force majeure as it can be applied in different jurisdictions, the analysis that companies must perform before relying on it, and the options available instead of force majeure. It is important to ensure that cases of force majeure are events that are not reasonably foreseeable/unlikely. Therefore, if the power supply is necessary for the operation of the installations but is generally intermittent, the parties must ensure that there is backup production or another solution.
However, in other circumstances, temporary delivery is unusual/not reasonably foreseeable and should be included as a case of force majeure. A carefully negotiated force majeure clause is an important tool to reduce the liability risk associated with cancelling or shortening a scheduled meeting in response to a disaster. When significant resources are at stake, meeting planners should consider seeking advice from legal counsel before signing contracts, and should also consider purchasing meeting insurance. If you take the proper precautions at first, you can be sure that even in the worst circumstances, you will have the flexibility to make the best decision for your meeting. One of the effects is that many companies struggle to meet their obligations under their contracts. If your company is in this situation, you can find possible relief in a “boilerplate” provision of your contracts: the force majeure clause. However, if a listed force majeure event occurs, further analysis is required to determine if the call will be successful. The consequences of recent major disasters, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the damage caused by storms and floods caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, have reinforced the importance of careful contingency planning when negotiating futures contracts. . .
.