Analysis by Mariah Rossi
In the midst of the Covid–19 pandemic, economists, political scientists and lawyers are all speculating about its medium-to-long term repercussions. One issue that poses a common challenge for many scholars is Force Majeure clauses in contracts and their applicability during this crisis. Due to the “factspecific” nature of Force Majeure clauses, Covid–19 cannot be unilaterally applied to all contracts, although the potential of mass contractual disputes and fallouts is high. The economic impact of stalled and cancelled international and domestic business contracts is staggering, and governments have to decide whether they will opt to legislate or have parties litigate in response to the virus. Scholars advocate for international collaboration and flexibility between parties to mitigate the contractional consequences of the novel coronavirus.
Despite scholars’ emphasis on collaboration, governments around the world have not coordinated efforts to address these legal ramifications. Instead, governments have implemented drastically different legal measures in addressing the virus, further complicating international business and international relations. To illustrate this point, this paper will look at France, Italy and China. The comparison between France and Italy will demonstrate the lack of consensus within the European Union with respect to Force Majeure clauses, while China’s stance as a world trading power will have legal consequences for international business worldwide.