法润原创丨中外关于疫情可以援引的抗辩事由的介绍

Some foreign companies may consider ForceMajeure after COVID-19 outbreak. Provision like Force Majeure is a must in aninternational contract, but what is it exactly and what is the consequence ofinvoking it?

国外企业可以选择不可抗力作为新冠病毒爆发后的方案。对一份合同而言，不可抗力条款可以说是合同的一个必备条款，但国外引用不可抗力条款有什么要求？

Force Majeure is an extraordinarycircumstance which is beyond the control of the parties and unable to performtheir obligations. This is a Civil Law concept and nowadays, many common lawcountries import this concept in their regulations. But in some Common lawcountry like Britain, it is strictly limited that contractors should specifythe triggering events as a clause in the contract, typically including Acts ofGod, extreme weather event, riot, wars, invasion, labor unrest, terrorism, embargoand sometimes epidemic. It depends on what specific circumstance regulated byboth parties, and whatever not written in the contract will never be adopted asa Force Majeure event.

不可抗力是指超出了一方的控制范围导致无法履行合同义务的一种异常情况。这是一个大陆法系的概念，如今，许多普通法系国家在其法规中也引入了这一概念。但是在部分英美法系国家（如英国），严格限制承包商在合同中指定触发事件作为条款，通常包括天灾，极端天气、骚乱、战争、入侵、劳工动荡、恐怖主义行为、禁运，有时也包括流行疾病等，取决于双方的规定，合同中未写明的内容都不会被视为不可抗力。

A Force Majeure clause is “to save thedefaulting party from the consequences of anything over which he had no control”[1], and the nonperformance party is able to avoid their duties. But this doesnot mean that their obligations are entirely excused, it is just temporarilysuspended during the event. As long as the event is remedied, the obligationresumes. Also, incorrectly declaring Force Majeure clause may constitute abreach of the contract, based on which the other party is entitled to seekdamages.

不可抗力条款旨在“挽救违约方免于他无法控制的任何后果” [1]并能够免除责任。但这并不意味着他们的全部义务都被免除，只是在不可抗力事件存续期间暂时中止了。只要该情形结束，相应合同义务就会恢复。另外，错误引用不可抗力条款可能构成实质违约，另一方有权据此主张损害赔偿。

So the nonperformance party have the burdenof prove, usually including: 1. that the event is unforeseeable; 2. that theevent is external which nonperformance party can do nothing with; 3. that theevent is irresistible and the performance is impossible and impractical. InFrench law, it should meet 3 conditions: externality, unpredictability, irresistibility.For some courts in New York and , proof of reasonable notice provided to thecounter party and attempt to fulfill the contractual obligations despite thetriggering event is required as well[2].

因此，违约方的举证责任通常包括：1.该事件是不可预见的； 2.事件是外部的，违约方不能采取任何行动； 3.该事件是不可抗拒的，实际履行是不可能和不切实际的。在法国法律中，它应满足三个条件：外部性，不可预测性和不可抗拒性。对于部分纽约州和纽约州的法院要求向对方提供合理通知的证据，并且提供为履行合同义务做好充足准备的证据[2]。

If there is no Force Majeure clause in thecontract, Material Adverse Change (MAC) or Material Adverse Effect (MAE) may beinvoked. This is a common-used doctrine under common law, but there is nosimilar regulations in China. MAC is a change in circumstances thatsignificantly reduces the value of a company.

如果合同中不存在不可抗力条款，当事人可以援引重大不利影响条款（也可以称作重大不利变化条款，以下简称MAC）。这是一种普通法系下很常见的理论，但中国法律并没有做相应的规定。MAC是指显著影响公司价值的情况。

It is a contractual term and the definitionof MAC is quite different, especially about disease outbreak, epidemic,pandemic (some parties may involve them in the contract while some speciallymention these situations as excluded [3]). The provision usually exclude somespecific events, such as Acts of God, severe weather event, military actions,epidemics, disease, health emergencies [4], etc… If one party meets such event,he may avoid performance or terminate the contract.

MAC条款是一种典型的经由当事人约定才能适用的条款，且各个合同对MAC的定义也各不相同。尤其关于流行病方面，某些合同可能将它们纳入合同条款中，而某些合同特别注明这些情况被排除在外[3]。该条款通常不包括某些特定情形，如天灾、恶劣天气、军事行动、流行病、疾病、突发卫生事件[4]等……如果一方遇到此类事件，他可以免于履行或终止合同。

According to the judgments in New Yorkcourts, to invoke MAC clause, one party should not only facing the event that appearsin the contract, but also should prove that the event has to be long-term andmaterial. “A short-term hiccup in earnings should not suffice; rather theMaterial Adverse Effect should be material when viewed from the longer-termperspective of a reasonable acquiror.”[5] So the demonstration of an applicableMAC event should go through three steps: 1. that the event is not excluded inthe contract. If parties do not include “pandemic”, “epidemic” or “disease” inthe contract, such event (like COVID-19) is not acceptable as a MAC. 2. That oneparty suffers disproportionally affects compared to its industry peers by theevent purportedly constituting the MAC exception. 3. That the party suffers durationalimplications and here the implication can be economical or operational. Finally,the loss is not a necessary consideration to MAC. In Frontier Oil Corp. v.Holly [6], the Delaware Chancery Court says that “"substantial"litigation costs and the potential of a "catastrophic," judgment of"hundreds of millions of dollars" did not constitute an MAC becausethe substantial defense costs could be borne by the acquirer without an MAE andthe acquirer had not borne their burden to prove the speculative nature of thepotential damages.” [7]

根据纽约法院的判决，一方援引MAC条款时不仅要以正在遭受合同项下的事由，而且还应证明该事由必须是长期的且重大。“短期资金短缺并不能作为理由，MAC从合理收购方的角度来看应当是重大、长期的。”[5]因此，适用的MAC事件时应当经过三个步骤：1.该事件未在合同中予以排除。如果双方未在合同中约定“流行病”、“严重流行病”或“疾病”等，则此类事件（如COVID-19）不得成立MAC。2. 与同行业相比，该方遭受了不成比例的影响。 3. 该方遭受影响系长期，此处所涉及的影响可能是经济方面的或实操方面的。最后，损失不是MAC的必要考虑因素。在Frontier Oil Corp.诉Holly [6]一案中，特拉华州法院表示，“重大”诉讼费用和“灾难性”潜在后果导致的“数亿美元”的判决并不构成MAC，因为该费用可以由没有MAC的收购方承担，并且收购方不承担证明潜在损害的投机性质的责任。” [7]

According to the condition above, manyexperts find the COVID-19 event not fit the MAC, but for courts, it still needsfurther observation.

根据上述情况，多数学者认为COVID-19不适用MAC，但对于法院实际判决如何仍需要进一步观察。

Frustration occurs “where, after a contractis made, a party's principal purpose is substantially frustrated without his faultby the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basicassumption on which the contract was made, his remaining duties to renderperformance are discharged, unless the language or circumstances [of the contract]indicate the contrary.”[11] In short, it means the purpose of signing thecontract cannot fulfill.

履行受挫是指：“订立合同后，一方当事人的主要目的在没有发生障碍的情况下受到实质性受挫而不存在过错，该事件的发生不以订立合同的基本假设为准，而他履行履约的剩余职责除非[合同]的语言或情况有相反的规定，否则将被解除。” [11]简言之，合同订立的基本目的无法实现。

To invoke this doctrine, one must provethat the principal purpose in making the contract is frustrated, which meansthe demonstration of: 1.that the event is not provided within the contract; 2. theevent should have not been reasonably foreseeable; 3. that the event was notcause by one of the parties to the contract.[12] Typically, the triggeringevent includes: 1. destruction of the subject matter, that something essentialto the contract -expressly identified- is destroyed; 2. supervening illegality,where a law subsequent to contracting is passed, rendering the fundamentalprinciple of contracting illegal; 3. incapacity or death, that a person or agroup under contract become unavailable; 4. A serious delay which affects theintended purpose of the contract.

要援引该事由，当事人应当证明订立合同的主要目的受挫，包括：1. 合同中未涉及该事件； 2. 该事件不应被合理预见；3. 该事件不是由合同的任何一方引起的。[12]通常，前述事件包括：1. 标的物毁损灭失，即对合同必不可少的特定物品被毁损；（二）事后违法，指法律修改前该合同有效，法律修改后导致合同无效；3. 无民事行为能力或死亡，可以是个人或集体；4.严重迟延导致合同的预期目的受到影响。

If frustration is applicable, the party canterminate the contract.

该情形的适用结果为当事人可以解除合同。

Impracticability is the event that thecontractual duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party. Incomparison with Impossibility, impracticability makes the performance ofobligation extremely burdensome, but still physically possible, whereimpossibility is that the performance is literally impossible. According to UCC2-615, one can invoke impracticability if performance as agreed has been madeimpracticable by the occurrence of a contingency the non-occurrence and providenotice to the buyer and if affects only a part of the seller's capacity toperform, he must allocate production and deliveries reasonably and in goodfaith. According to the note 4 under UCC 2-615, increased cost alone does notexcuse performance unless the rise in cost is due to some unforeseencontingency which alters the nature of performance. It further explains that achange in market conditions resulting in a rise or drop in prices is notsufficient to claim impracticability because the parties assumed that risk whenthe contract was made.[13]

履行不实际是指当事人的合同义务的履行变得极为困难或代价十分昂贵。与“履行不能”相比，“履行不实际”使履行义务极为繁重，但在客观层面而言仍然是可能的，而“履行不能”是指从根本上说不可能履行义务。根据UCC 2-615的规定，如果卖方因意外事件的发生而使约定的履约变得不可行，并且已经通知买方；如果仅影响卖方履约能力的一部分，仍然可以援引履行不实际，但双方应当真诚地合理分配生产和交货。根据UCC 2-615下的注释4，仅成本增加并不能成为该事由援引理由，除非成本上升是由于某些不可预见的意外情况导致，且改变了履行的根本目的。它进一步解释说，由于市场条件的变化导致价格上涨或下降不足以引用该情形，因为当事方在订立合同时就默认已经接受了该风险。[13]