The parties should also consider the impact on other provisions of the contract. For example, it may be appropriate to provide for the duration of the contract to be extended by the duration of the force majeure event. The information provided is not intended to constitute a comprehensive review of all developments in law and practice or to cover all aspects of these aspects. Readers should seek legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions. One of these terms, often used but misunderstood, is “act of God.” This briefing note examines whether the act of god in English law is likely to cover the effects of COVID-19. Center frequency. The term “centre frequency” means: The parties have agreed to renew the FM agreement with the Authority under the conditions listed below. In English law, the effects of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) on force majeure clauses must also be taken into account. Under UCTA, a party may not rely on a provision to exclude or limit liability for its own breach of contract unless such a clause meets the UCTA adequacy test (Article 3(2) UCTA). While force majeure clauses are generally considered appropriate, they can raise issues if they are exceptionally broad to cover issues such as increased costs or events that appear to be within the parties` control. However, in Greenock Corpn v. Caledonian Rly Co (a Scottish case), a stricter approach was adopted, with the Tribunal noting that the relevant test was whether the circumstances in question were foreseeable as a possibility.23 Subsequent cases did not clarify whether the “soft” criterion of adequacy or the “hard” test was preferable to possibility.24 Although the emphasis is always on the specific terms of the and the context in which the term is used, Some useful indications can be drawn from the case law.

Based on these guidelines, which are explained in more detail below, we believe it can be argued that COVID-19 falls in principle within the definition of “force majeure”. If there are more than eight candidates engaged, the FCC divides the eight-year term among the candidates who receive a point for established community presence. If there are more than eight applicants, the FCC will grant one-year non-renewable licensing agreements to the eight companies with the longest presence in the community. There are circumstances in which a contract can be terminated for illegality, either because the contract itself is against the law or because the conduct of the parties is unlawful in some way. There is clearly some overlap between illegality and frustration. Although a detailed discussion of the doctrine of illegality is not within the scope of this briefing, suffice it to say that it also has a very limited application, and most cases in this area involve some kind of illegal behavior that is considered contrary to public policy, such as: Contracts relating to the proceeds of crime. The term “prevent” has been interpreted as having a rather narrow meaning: the party invoking force majeure must prove that the performance of its obligations was legally or physically impossible and was not only more costly than originally intended.4 Isotropic radiated power equivalents (IREs). The term “equivalent isotropic radiated power (also called “effective radiated power on isotropic power”) refers to the product of the antenna input power and the amplification of the antenna in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna. Due to different interpretations of force majeure in legal systems, it is common for contracts to contain specific definitions of force majeure, especially at the international level. Some systems limit force majeure to force majeure (such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) but exclude human or technical failures (e.g. acts of war, terrorist activities, industrial actions, or interruption or failure of power or communication systems). The point of consultation in the drafting of contracts is the distinction between force majeure and other forms of force majeure.

On the other hand, in a recent 2019 case, the court ruled that Brexit did not thwart a 25-year lease of the London premises belonging to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The court rejected the EMA`s argument that (i) the lease was thwarted by the overlapping of illegality and (ii) the parties` common purpose would be thwarted by Brexit. As regards illegality, the court found that there was no reason why the EMA could not continue to rent the premises. With regard to the point of common purpose, the tribunal noted that: Force majeure is a common clause in contracts that essentially releases both parties from liability or obligation if an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, A crime, epidemic or event described by the legal concept of force majeure, prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. In practice, most force majeure clauses do not fully excuse the non-performance of a party, but only suspend it for the duration of the force majeure. [1] It could be argued that COVID-19 does not fit this notion of a natural event, because diseases, especially those that spread from person to person, involve people`s ability to act. It could also be argued that the disruptive event is, to a large extent, the regulatory and legislative response of states (and their restrictive impact on economies). The causal element is therefore not the virus, but the actions of governments. To the extent that different governments have reacted differently to the “isolation” of societies and economies (for example, Sweden – at the time of writing – has taken a much less draconian set of measures than neighbouring Norway), this argument would carry more weight.