FORCE MAJEURE

A French word equivalent to Force majeure is “Vis Majeure”, in Latin it means “superior power”. It is defined under the Black’s Law Dictionary, as any event of the effect that can neither be anticipated nor controlled. This term used to describe a superior force. So typically, force majeure includes fire, flood, civil unrest, or terrorist attack. It is a contractual obligation to allocate the risk of loss if performance becomes impossible or impracticable. Especially in any event where parties could not anticipate or control the situation. In Indian statutes, force majeure has neither been defined nor specifically dealt with. That way only a few references can be found in section 32 of the Indian Contract Act[i] and section 56[ii].

According to section 32. If a contract is unforeseeable on the happening of an event which event becomes impossible, then the contract becomes void. From a contract perspective, a force majeure clause provides temporary remission to a party from performing its obligations.

According to section 56, an act that must be performed after the contract is made in itself considered unlawful. It refers to an Agreement to do impossible act, is void. If a contract does not include the clause of force majeure, then the parties could take relief under this section as it applies the doctrine of frustration.

Source of the doctrine in English law in the case of Taylor v. Caldwell[iii]. It was held that when an opera house, which was rented for holding concerts which were destroyed by fire, the contract was frustrated. This has happened because the very thing on which the contract depends ceased to exist or if a certain thing happened.

The effect of both force majeure and the doctrine[iv] leads to the discharge of contract between the parties. Thus, replace their obligations under the Contract. SATYABRATA GHOSE V. MUGNEERAM BANGUR &CO. ANR[v], in this case, the court of India, held that the word impossibility used under section 56. It is evident that the section envisages some impossibility or unlawfulness of the performance of the Act. But the contract has fundamentally changed, which the parties had not to be held at the time of the agreement.

This article does not intend to hurt the sentiments of any individual, community, sect, or religion, etcetera. This article is based purely on the author’s opinion and views in the exercise of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(A) and other related laws being enforced in India for the time being.

[i] 1872

[ii] Indian Contract Act

[iii] Section 56

[iv] Of frustration

[v] AIR 1954 SC44

This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code Legal and Tax shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.