Insights
Publications

7 Ways to Check If Coronavirus Triggers ‘Force Majeure’ Clauses in Your Wine Business Contracts

April 30, 2020 Articles
North Bay Business Journal

Never in the experience of most of us has an event so thoroughly interrupted business as usual as the coronavirus pandemic. The wine business runs on contracts: grape purchase agreements, event hosting contracts, vineyard leases, custom crush arrangements, to name a few.

Everywhere, contract parties unable to conduct or facing severe stress in their businesses are reassessing their contractual rights and obligations, especially under “force majeure” clauses. These common clauses are one type of provision that may serve to excuse a party from performing under a contract when an “act of God” or other extraordinary circumstance beyond the parties’ control prevents performance.

Be warned: a force majeure clause is not a “get out of jail free” card. The important point to know is that just because a contract has a force majeure clause doesn’t mean that one or both parties are excused from their obligations, even if circumstances have turned unexpectedly bad.

Whether a force majeure clause applies will depend on the specific language of the clause itself and the facts making it difficult or impossible for a party to perform as originally expected.

The party relying on the clause bears the burden of proving that it applies, and courts have interpreted these provisions narrowly. Force majeure is not necessarily limited to an “act of God.” As one California court has explained, the “test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the parties’ intervention as could not have been prevented by prudence, diligence and care.”

But a business downturn is not usually considered an act of God and economic hardship alone will typically not excuse performance under a force majeure clause. Nor will a mere increase in expense, unless the contractual act has become impossible or impracticable due to an excessive, unreasonable, and unbargained-for expense.

In evaluating whether a force majeure clause excuses performance of a contract due to COVID-19, consider the following:

  1. If an event needs to be canceled, does the event contract include a force majeure provision that refers to a quarantine, pandemic, or public health emergency, either explicitly or implicitly?
  2. If the event is scheduled for a period during which shelter in place orders are in effect, does the clause reference governmental actions?
  3. If the provision lists qualifying events but not one that specifically applies, does it also state that those events are not an exhaustive list?
  4. Was a pandemic foreseeable by the contracting parties such that the general “circumstances beyond a party’s control” force majeure test may not be met? For example, a contract executed after the WHO declared a global pandemic may not qualify for excused performance under force majeure if the interference was foreseeable.
  5. How strong and direct is the causal connection between COVID-19 and the impediments to performance? For example, if a grape purchase agreement is in question, is the pandemic or a government order preventing marshaling the labor needed to harvest or receive the grapes?
  6. Is it possible to mitigate the effect of COVID-19 on the performance of the contract? Can an event be rescheduled? Consider whether a contract can be partially performed with commercially reasonable measures in case force majeure does not apply. Can a smaller grape harvest be delivered and received with the labor at hand?
  7. Is it actually impossible or impracticable for the party to perform? Consider whether it is actually impossible to perform the contract due to COVID-19, or whether it has just become prohibitively expensive to do so.

It should come as no surprise after reading this that parties considering invoking force majeure should be sure to document all the ways in which COVID-19 has made the contract impossible or difficult to perform and the causal links between the virus and contractual impediments as specifically as possible.

Ultimately, a force majeure clause is a limited and specific modification of how risks are allocated among the parties in a contract and therefore will only be allowed to the degree the contract specifically provides.

That said, given the unprecedented nature of this global pandemic, we have found that some entities have been more flexible in their interpretation of these clauses and willing to negotiate mutually agreeable resolutions where certain guarantees can be made.

Determining whether a force majeure clause will excuse performance of a contract requires careful review of the contract language and facts involved.

Other kinds of provisions in a contract may also be able to provide relief for parties struggling to perform a contract due to COVID-19. Additional considerations such as whether insurance is available to the party who cannot perform should be evaluated as well.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Compelling Employees to Arbitration Suddenly Has Less of an Upside

On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs Inc., as to whether employees still have standing to sue for "non-individual" PAGA claims when they have been...

Read More
Publication

Disputes Between Shareholders May Not Be Governed by Fiduciary Duties but Could Be Covered by Insurance

(As published in Private Company Director ) Disputes regarding ownership interests often arise in the context of closely held corporations, particularly when directors, officers, or majority shareholders sell or acquire ownership interests in the...

Read More
Publication

Wire Fraud Victims Have New Reporting Factors After Ciminelli

Originally published by  Bloomberg Law . Courts around the country have seen an influx of challenges to indictments and convictions since the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in  Ciminelli v. United States  last May...

Read More
News

Scraping Battles: Meta Loses Legal Effort to Halt Harvesting of Personal Profiles

Alex Reese spoke to Matt Fleischer-Black of  Cybersecurity Law Report about the Meta v. Bright Data decision and its impact on U.S. scraping case law. Read the article here (paywall or trial).

Read More
Publication

Major Decision Affects Law of Scraping and Online Data Collection, Meta Platforms v. Bright Data

On January 23, 2024, the court in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd. , Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC (N.D. Cal.), issued a summary judgment ruling with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for the law of scraping and...

Read More
Publication

Reporting Dispute Claims Within Closely Held Wineries

Many wineries operate as closely held companies, meaning they’re owned by an individual or small group of shareholders, who are often members of the same family. Disputes regarding ownership interests can arise, particularly when directors...

Read More
News

Farella 2024 Partner Elevations: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce the election of two lawyers to partnership effective Jan. 1: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint. “We are thrilled to elevate Cynthia and...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
News

Farella Wins Complete Defense Ruling at Trial for Smart Meter Technology Company

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel secured a complete defense victory for a smart meter technology company following a two-week bench trial in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California...

Read More
Publication

Ensuring Your Website Complies With the ADA

In today’s digital age, having an online presence is crucial for businesses, including wineries, breweries, and other beverage companies. Accordingly, it’s essential to ensure that your beverage website meets federal standards for accessibility to avoid...

Read More