The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on nearly every industry in the global economy. The nascent and volatile cannabis industry was not exempt and, in some jurisdictions, has been impacted significantly due to local or state shelter or stay-at home orders. In most states where adult-use cannabis is legal, local and state governments have deemed cannabis businesses as essential and, thus, are permitted to continue operating notwithstanding local or state shelter orders. However, despite their characterization as essential businesses, many limitations imposed by local or state shelter orders have greatly affected the way cannabis businesses operate. As a result, cannabis businesses have experienced steep declines in their revenues and, in some instances, have left cannabis businesses unable to perform contractual obligations that they entered into pre-pandemic.
To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris partner Tracy Gallegos, please visit the Cannabis Business Executive website.
On 7 May 2020 the UK Government published its “Guidance on responsible contractual behaviour in the performance and enforcement of contracts impacted by the COVID-19 emergency”.
To read this post by Duane Morris partner Steve Nichol, which lists some of the key points arising and analysis of the same, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.
COVID 19 is having a massive impact on supply chains and business continuity and, post lockdown, questions will be asked about who pays for this. The knee-jerk response of many businesses is that the pandemic is a unique, unforeseeable “Act of God” and that businesses which have furloughed staff or been forced to close during the lockdown or have had difficulties with their own supply chains or customers reducing purchase volumes, have no liabilities to or remedies against others for the consequent losses sustained. The reality is that on a case by case basis, businesses already adversely affected by this pandemic may find that contractual claims are being made against them or that they have a route to mitigate their losses by looking at their own contractual or statutory rights.
To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris partner Susan Laws, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.
The global outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is a public health emergency of international concern. In Singapore, the government has acted swiftly to impose restrictions. At the time of this article, all gatherings have been limited to 10 persons until 30 April 2020, and all events of 250 people or more have been suspended until 30 June 2020.
The situation is evolving rapidly and we expect these regulations to be tightened or extended. One group that has been impacted are couples with upcoming wedding celebrations, as well as other events organisers. If you are in this position, you may be wondering whether you are entitled to cancel or postpone your event, without losing your deposit, or worse, being forced to pay the full agreed price to the venue and your vendors. This article is meant to be a simple guide to navigating the process.
To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris & Selvam director Daniel Soo, please visit the firm website.
By Thomas R. Schmuhl
If a U.S. company has a sales or supply agreement with a buyer or supplier outside of the United States which has been disrupted or otherwise impacted by circumstances relating to the COVID-19 situation now garnering world-wide attention, determining whether or not force majeure applies may not be governed by traditional domestic U.S. law.
Since January 1, 1988, such international commercial agreements have been governed by the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods, commonly known as the CISG. The CISG is an international convention with the full force of federal law that preempts state contract law that would otherwise govern such commercial agreements, including both the Uniform Commercial Code and common law. Under the CISG, a sale taking place between a seller in one country which has acceded to the CISG and a buyer in another country which has acceded to the CISG, will be governed by the CISG just as a sale between a buyer in New York and a seller in Illinois will be governed by the Uniform Commercial Code. Simply put, the governing law of the international contract between the buyer and the seller is the CISG when the parties are in different countries which have each acceded to the CISG. Many of the countries most impacted by the COVID-19 situation (e.g. the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Canada) have acceded to the CISG.
In the present context of COVID-19, this means that whether the impact of the virus constitutes force majeure will be determined by the CISG unless, pursuant to Article 6 of the CISG, the parties to the contract have explicitly and clearly excluded the application of the CISG from the contract in whole or in part. Article 79 of the CISG sets forth the standards for determining if a force majeure condition has arisen. Those standards bear a resemblance (but are not identical) to the standards found in many commercial laws around the world such as Section 615 of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
One quick and obvious lesson to be drawn from this brief discussion is that is that the best protection available to buyers and sellers in an international context is a carefully drafted force majeure clause that will minimize the uncertainty that can arise from having to analyze real events like an epidemic in the context of the principles propounded in a state or nation’s commercial code or the international CISG.
Unforeseeable circumstances – such as the outbreak of coronavirus – that prevent a party from fulfilling its contractual duties may fall under the force majeure clause of that contract.
Force majeure clauses are specific to each contract and operate as a risk allocation mechanism to govern situations that are beyond the parties’ control, such as the outbreak of war or natural disasters. Whether the COVID-19 outbreak constitutes a force majeure event depends on the exact wording and scope of the provision in the contract. For example, if the force majeure clause:
- expressly specifies epidemics, diseases or public health emergencies, then COVID-19 likely qualifies as a force majeure event;
- covers “acts of government,” then travel bans may be covered.
The party seeking to invoke force majeure usually must show a causal connection between the event – the outbreak of COVID-19 – that made it effectively impossible to perform its contractual duties. The clause may operate to excuse or suspend performance of a particular contractual duty.
Some companies are providing force majeure notices to their contract partners. The China Council for the Promotion of International Trade announced that it will offer force majeure certificates to help companies deal with overseas contractual requirements. The effectiveness of these certificates and notices will depend on the exact language of the contract’s force majeure clause.
If your contracts do not contain a force majeure clause, then the narrower doctrine of frustration of the contract purpose may apply. To qualify under this doctrine, the event must (1) be not reasonably foreseeable and (2) radically change the contract terms from what the parties agreed to.
Of course, there is no court guidance yet on how the COVID-19 outbreak may affect commercial contracts. The facts are still evolving. But as businesses prepare for the impact of the virus in the United States, they can look to the cases that arose out of past unexpected events like the September 11 terrorist attacks, previous changes in Chinese government policy or unprecedented weather events as a guide to how to deal with key contracts.
View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.