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


Pandemic Restriction Challenges Face Uphill Battle in California

On Dec.16, 2020, in Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego, the San Diego Superior Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of two COVID-19-related California public health restrictions as applied to two adult entertainment businesses...

Read More

Cannabis Disputes: How to Minimize Your Litigation Risks

Farella's Cannabis Industry Education Series features Tony Schoenberg and Cynthia Castillo discussing "Cannabis Disputes: How to Minimize Your Litigation Risks." The laws regulating the cannabis industry are quickly changing and evolving. Many disputes are a...

Read More

Douglas Young Appointed Special Master in Wit v. United Behavioral Health

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has appointed Douglas R. Young to serve as special master in the Wit v. United Behavioral...

Read More

Nevada Links Wins Summary Judgment Motion in Case Brought by United States

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel successfully defended Nevada Links, Inc., the owner of a championship golf course in Las Vegas, Nevada, in a $100 million lawsuit brought by the United States...

Read More

Sarah Good Appointed to California State Bar's Ad Hoc Commission on the Discipline System

Read More

Farella Braun + Martel Shortlisted for Three 2021 Benchmark Litigation Awards

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel has been shortlisted for three 2021 Benchmark Litigation awards. The firm was shortlisted for “San Francisco Firm of the Year” and in the California White-Collar Crime...

Read More

New Year, New CMS Price Transparency Rule For Hospitals

Transparency in health care pricing can help patients make informed decisions, increase competition, and drive down the cost of health care. Accordingly, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has promulgated a new...

Read More

The Advocates’ Society Spring Symposium: The Advocate Making a Difference

Douglas Young is the keynote speaker at The Advocates’ Society Spring Symposium: The Advocate Making a Difference on April 28. The Advocates' Society and the American College of Trial Lawyers invite you to attend the...

Read More

Landlord-Tenant Dispute Resolution

Farella's Real Estate Webinar Series features Tony Schoenberg discussing "Landlord-Tenant Disputes and Challenges." The laws governing landlord-tenant relationships are complicated. Understanding your rights and legal obligations will help you protect yourself, your rental business, and...

Read More

Jurors, Justice and Technology

Douglas Young, Farella partner and president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, spoke with podcast host Howard Miller about requirements in jury selection and technology for jury and non-jury trials. Listen to the...

Read More