A Few More Thoughts About Improving Our Force Majeure Provisions

Mar 26, 2020

By Erin Shea


See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below

View Patrick Law Group, LLC

The Coronavirus pandemic has brought the force majeure provision into the spotlight. A quick Google search brings up countless articles published in the past few weeks by lawyers worldwide about how to use force majeure provisions offensively and defensively in these uncertain times. Hopefully, we will take the lessons we learn in these next few months to draft more effective force majeure language customized for our clients and their businesses. The goal of this article is to give you a few more things to think about as you update and improve your force majeure language.

Like all provisions in an agreement, force majeure language varies widely. However, many begin with a phrase similar to “Except with respect to payment obligations…”  Having spent a large part of my legal career on the buy-side, I have a strong aversion to that language and always strike it. Having payments approved and timely made is a complicated process at most companies in the best of times. Payments are now processed through various accounting systems requiring layers of approvals from individuals in multiple offices. In the event of a natural disaster where communications or power services are impaired, you may not be able to process a payment in the time required by the applicable agreement and a delay may be inevitable. In addition, I have seen a recent push by vendors to include language that any payment breach is a material breach of the agreement. I suggest purchasers delete both types of language to avoid any dispute with or breach claim by a vendor over a delayed payment because of a force majeure event.

Many force majeure provisions include “strikes, lockouts and other labor problems” in the long list of force majeure events. Are these situations always unforeseen or beyond a party’s control?  Arguably, companies have some control over their own labor issues. What a company definitely cannot control are the labor issues of a third party. If you are a telecommunications provider, should you be relieved from your contractual obligations because you have labor strike?  I think you will find strong opinions on both sides of that debate. However, I think everyone would agree that if a party’s telecommunications provider has a strike that party will have delays and performance issues from which it should have some relief. Consider inserting “third party” before labor-related force majeure language so a vendor is not able to claim its own labor problems as a force majeure event.

Both natural disasters and labor concerns raise an additional issue that I try to address in force majeure language. Many agreements, especially in the information technology and outsourcing industries, include extensive business continuity and disaster recovery requirements. A call center services provider may have locations worldwide and in regions where natural disasters are more frequent. Depending on the global footprint of the provider, it may be reasonable to expect the provider to be able to continue providing services even when a natural disaster hits one call center. Frequently, the parties will have spent a significant amount of time negotiating business continuity and disaster recovery language to cover that situation. Force majeure language should not undermine those obligations. Consider adding to your force majeure provision language that the provision does not in anyway diminish a vendor’s obligation to comply with the business continuity and disaster recovery requirements in the agreement.

My last point may seem obvious, but I find that it is not always addressed. When can you terminate if the force majeure event continues for too long?  Force majeure language generally lists the types of events that constitute force majeure and allows the affected party a period of delay while the party works diligently toward removing the event causing the delay. However, termination if the delay goes on too long is not always addressed. Using the call center services provider example from above, your client may be able to roll calls to an internal call center or another call center services provider for a few weeks, but beyond that period of time, your client will need to decide how to move forward with its call center operations. The answer of when is “too long” will vary widely depending on the vendor and their services. For a call center services provider, it may be a week or two, and for a less critical vendor, it may be thirty days.

I have heard many people say that we will all live differently when the Coronavirus pandemic subsides. I agree, and I also predict that, as lawyers, we definitely will spend more time and energy drafting and negotiating force majeure provisions.

OTHER THOUGHT LEADERSHIP POSTS:

FTC Provides Guidance on Using Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms

The Director of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection recently issued guidance in its Tips and Advice blog as to how companies can manage consumer protection risks that may arise as a result of using artificial intelligence and algorithms.

Is Robotic Process Automation Reducing or Increasing your Software Licensing Fees?

While statistics regarding the increase in the use of Robotic Process Automation (RPA) vary, it is clear that the use of RPA is on the rise. Companies are rolling out RPA in an effort to increase productivity, cut costs and reduce errors.

A Few More Thoughts About Improving Our Force Majeure Provisions

The Coronavirus pandemic has brought the force majeure provision into the spotlight. A quick Google search brings up countless articles published in the past few weeks by lawyers worldwide about how to use force majeure provisions offensively and defensively in these uncertain times.

Government Efforts to Fight a Pandemic Challenge Data Privacy Concerns

Media outlets reported this week that representatives from Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple are meeting with members of the White House to brainstorm about ways in which the “Big Four,” can leverage the consumer information they possess to help in the war against COVID–19.

School or Parent? Factors Playing into the FTC’s Analysis of who should provide Parental Consent under COPPA in the Age of EdTech

The use of education technologies (EdTech) has exploded in recent years. In fact, between online learning sites, one to one device deployments in school districts and personalized curriculum services, virtually every student today has some online or digital component to their learning.

NYC’s Task Force to Tackle Algorithmic Bias Issues Final Report

In December, 2017 the New York City Council passed Local Law 49, the first law in the country designed to address algorithmic bias and discrimination occurring as a result of algorithms used by City agencies.

While you’ve been focused on CCPA Compliance Efforts, Elon has Been Developing Cyborgs

On November 27, 2019, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released for public comment a draft of Binding Operational Directive 20-01, Develop and Publish a Vulnerability Disclosure Policy (the “Directive”).

DHS Cybersecurity Arm Directs Executive Agencies to Develop Vulnerability Disclosure Policies

On November 27, 2019, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released for public comment a draft of Binding Operational Directive 20-01, Develop and Publish a Vulnerability Disclosure Policy (the “Directive”).

Open Internet Advocates Rejoice: Ninth Circuit Finds Web Scraping of Publicly Accessible Data Likely Does Not Violate CFAA

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed open internet advocates a big win by upholding the right of a data analytics startup to use automated bots to scrape publicly available data.

The ABA Speaks on AI

By Jennifer Thompson | Earlier this week, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) House of Delegates, charged with developing policy for the ABA, approved Resolution 112 which urges lawyers and courts to reflect on their use (or non-use) of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the practice of law, and to address the attendant ethical issues related to AI.