The contract in this case
provided that
While
such Force Majeure Event is in operation the obligation of each Party to
perform this Charter Party (other than an accrued obligation to pay monies in
respect of a previous voyage) shall be suspended.
That clause does not say
that the obligation of the party whose performance is rendered difficult is
suspended, and then leave it to the rest of the law to work out what the
knock-on consequences of that are. It says that while a force majeure event is
in operation the obligation of each party to perform the contract at
all is suspended.
So Rob is of course right
that Force majeure clauses excuse a party from performing their obligations.
They don't discharge contracts.
But one still has to ask
whose obligations and what obligations do they suspend and the answer here is
both parties, and all obligations .
(I think I m agreeing with
Alex it s a point quite specific to the terms of this particular clause.)
--
Paul Stanley KC
D: +44 (0)20
7147 7340
Barrister
regulated by the Bar Standards Board.
Force
majeure clauses excuse a party from performing their obligations. They don't
discharge contracts.
Similarly,
it is wrong to think that "contracts" are frustrated, obligations
under contracts are.
So, it
would do no good for the carrier to argue that the shipper's obligations are
subject to a force majeure event. When they're sued for damages for breach of
contract they have to argue that they're excused from performing their own
obligations. It does them no good to argue that the counterparty would be
excused from paying because they could rely on force majeure. Which, as Jacobs
J explains, is what the arbitrator accepted they could do (doubtfully).
If the
carrier is excused from performing because of force majeure (or frustration)
that may mean the counterparty 's obligation to pay doesn't accrue (it being
conditional on the carriage) but that is because of the nonperformance , not
the force majeure (or frustration).
I don t
think that 'not being able to pay because of sanctions' is the force majeure
event. Indeed, not being able to pay isn t an event at all. (Perhaps it is a
state of affairs , but I doubt that too )
The
imposition of sanctions was an event. And, as you say, the arbitrator seems to
have accepted that the imposition of sanctions indirectly would have prevented
loading/discharge. We can agree or disagree about whether that was actually the
case, but I think it is the basis on which the dispute proceeded.
Nonetheless,
the person affected by the event was the shipper, not the carrier. The right
question the SC should have asked is whether the shipper could with reasonable
endeavours have overcome the event. I think that is doubtful.
But I don t
share in your criticism that the force majeure point didn t arise because the
carrier was able to perform even if unfortunately not argued on this basis, the
carrier could (and should) have argued that it was discharged from performing
and so could not be in breach.
I don't
agree. A force majeure event is defined by the contract
"b)
It prevents or delays the loading of the cargo at the loading port
and/or the discharge of the cargo at the discharging port"
So not being able to pay because of sanctions is not a
force majeure event.
The argument that seems to have been accepted by the
arbitrator (see Jacobs J) was that the carrier by loading would themselves be
triggering the sanctioned payment. But as they weren't *obliged* to accept any
payment, I don't see how the carrier could be excused from performing their
obligations (which is what a force majeure clause does).
Rob,
I am not
sure the force majeure clause works as you say. Though I do not think the case
is reasoned quite correctly either.
While such
Force Majeure Event is in operation the obligation of each Party to
perform this Charter Party (other than an accrued obligation to pay monies in
respect of a previous voyage) shall be suspended. (emphasis added).
So the
argument for the carriers is: *you* can t perform because of the force majeure
event, therefore *we both* need not perform. Therefore we aren t in breach.
And so at
issue was whether it really was the case that the shippers could not perform.
If so, then the question ought not to have been whether the carriers
could by reasonable endeavours have overcome the event, for they were not the
Party affected (cl. 36.3(d): A Force Majeure Event is an event or state
of affairs which meets all of the following criteria: It cannot be
overcome by reasonable endeavors from the Party affected). It was
whether the shippers could by reasonable endeavours have done so.
Do you think it would have made any difference if the
shipper had offered to pay in crypto?
This
email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that
the email is genuine and the content is safe.
A shipper cannot pay in US$ as contractually required because of sanctions, but
offers to pay in euros and to reimburse any conversion cost. Carrier refuses to
ship. Shipper claims damages for non-performance before an arbitrator. Carrier
invokes a force majeure event as an excuse. Shipper says "reasonable
endeavours" require the carrier to accept the proffer of euros. UKSC says
"reasonable endeavours" clause can't be used to require carrier to
accept a performance different from that contracted for. Carrier not liable.
How should these facts have been understood?
If *you* can t perform because of a contracted for force majeure event, *you*
should not be liable for breach, so long as *you* use reasonable endeavours.
But in RTI v MUR the party invoking the clause (the carrier) was perfectly able
to perform. There was no problem at all with their ability to load, carry and
deliver the goods. They should not be able to rely on the force majeure clause
at all (see also cl 36.3(b) of the contract of carriage which reinforces the
point.) That means the question of whether "reasonable endeavours"
could overcome the force majeure event was of no relevance. They should not
have been able to invoke force majeure at all.
Their counterparty, the shipper, may not have been able to perform their side
of the deal because they couldn t pay. We can have an argument about whether
they would have been able to perform or not but I don t think that is relevant.
The issue should have been: can the carrier refuse to perform because the
shipper will inevitably not pay the US$ contracted for? That is about whether
the carrier s obligation to perform was conditional upon the shipper s ability
to pay in the manner stipulated. Again, I don t think that is anything to do
with force majeure, and so reasonable endeavours is of no relevance. The
issue was whether a condition of the carrier s obligation to perform was
satisfied, not whether the shipper would be liable for breach.
As presently informed, even if the shipper would inevitably not be able to pay
the required US$ once the goods were carried, I don t see why that would have
been a condition of the obligation to carry. The shipper never repudiated the
deal.
Perhaps the court(s) were constrained by the appealed legal question from the
arbitrator's decision. But the result is difficult in the abstract and the
court does not state that they are so restricted,
Having yourself used reasonable endeavours is a condition of invoking
force majeure where you are unable to perform, but it was not relevant here.
Perhaps I have not understood the case, and so appeal to others.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body,
registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann
carthannais a th ann an Oilthigh Dh n ideann, cl raichte an Alba, ireamh
cl raidh SC005336.