Jarel is an AI-powered research and productivity tool. It does not provide legal advice. Always review outputs with a qualified legal professional where appropriate.
Legal Term Glossary
How to Analyze Force Majeure Clauses
A guide to reviewing contractual clauses that excuse performance. Learn to identify key risks and negotiation points in commercial agreements, whether you're reviewing one contract or hundreds.
Reviewing contracts for risk involves checking force majeure clauses. These clauses excuse a party's performance when an unforeseeable event makes it impossible. Without a well-drafted clause, disputes arise. Jarel helps legal teams analyze these provisions across entire contract portfolios, linking every finding directly to its source in the document.
What Defines a Force Majeure Event? A force majeure clause specifies events beyond a party's reasonable control, like natural disasters or government action. The exact definition is critical. Parties must negotiate this list; what one party considers an unforeseeable event, another might see as a manageable business risk. Vague drafting leads to disputes.
Practical Application in Contracts. A force majeure clause modifies contractual obligations. It typically excuses or suspends a party's performance. The non-performing party must demonstrate the event directly caused the non-performance. Notice requirements and mitigation efforts are often stipulated in the clause. Parties must draft these clauses carefully.
FAQ
Common questions
What constitutes a force majeure event?
The contract clause itself defines a force majeure event. Reviewers should look for a specific list of events (e.g., 'epidemic,' 'war') and any catch-all language (e.g., 'acts of God'). Check for the required causal link, notice periods, and mitigation duties, as these are common points of dispute.
Is force majeure automatically implied in contracts?
No. Force majeure is almost always a creature of contract. It is rarely implied under common law. Its application depends on specific contractual language. Civil law jurisdictions may have statutory provisions for similar situations.
How does force majeure differ from frustration of contract?
Force majeure operates based on a specific contractual clause. Frustration of contract applies when an unforeseen event makes performance impossible or fundamentally changes the contract's purpose, even without a specific clause. Frustration may terminate the contract entirely. Force majeure often allows for suspension or delayed performance.
Get started
Bring your next legal document into a source-linked workspace.
Start free and use Jarel for individual research, document review, and drafting support with the source material close enough to verify.
Free Starter for individual work. Team access available by request.
Workspace ready
01Upload material
02Ask with sources
03Review before use
Force Majeure vs. Frustration of Contract. Force majeure is a contractual remedy based on a specific clause. When reviewing a contract, your analysis starts and ends with the text of that clause. The common law doctrine of frustration is a fallback; it applies only when there is no force majeure clause and an event makes performance impossible or radically alters the contract's purpose. It is a high bar to meet and often terminates the contract entirely, whereas a force majeure clause typically suspends it.
Jurisdictional Differences. Common law systems, including English law, require an explicit force majeure clause and interpret its language strictly. By contrast, many civil law systems, including Swedish law, have statutory doctrines that may provide relief for unforeseen events even without a specific clause. These doctrines often have different standards and requirements than a typical force majeure provision, making choice of law a critical negotiation point.