浅析新型冠状病毒疫情对国际贸易合同履行的...

本文对于涉外贸易背景下不可抗力在不同情境下的适用进行了简要梳理，希望为受疫情影响的企业提供一些参考。

This article analyzes the application of force majeure under different circumstances in the context of international trade, with the hope to provide some reference for those affected by the novel coronavirus.

I. Where the contract expressly stipulates

a force majeure clause

不可抗力的概念源于大陆法系，大陆法系国家对其定义有细微的差别，但含义大同小异，中国合同法对不可抗力的定义为“订立合同时不能预见、不能避免并不能克服的客观情况”。不可抗力在多数大陆法系国家是法定免责理由，但是根据当事人意思自治的原则，仲裁庭和法院依然会尊重合同双方达成的特别约定。而在英美法系中，不可抗力并非法定的免责事由，只有在合同中明确约定不可抗力条款时才能适用。因此，无论是大陆法系还是英美法系，在处理合同纠纷时首先都会考虑合同本身的具体条款，并结合个案情况具体分析。

The concept of force majeure stems from civil law jurisdictions. Despite slight differences, the definitions of force majeure are more or less the same in essentials in most civil law countries. In China, force majeure is expressly stipulated under the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China and defined as “the objective circumstances that are unforeseeable, unavoidable and insurmountable at the time of contract execution”. Despite that force majeure is a statutory cause of exemption in most civil law countries, according to the principle of party autonomy, the arbitral tribunal or court will still give weight to special agreement reached by parties. While in common law jurisdictions, force majeure is not a statutory cause for exemption, and it only applies where the contract expressly provides a force majeure clause. Therefore, no matter in civil law jurisdiction or common law jurisdiction, when it comes to resolving contract disputes, the specific contract provisions will always be given priority and analyzed on a case by case basis.

合同条款对不可抗力事件表述的清晰程度关系到援引不可抗力抗辩的成功率。在Sun Wah Oil & Cereals Ltd. v. Gee Tai Trading Co., Ltd.一案中[1]，涉案买卖合同的不可抗力条款表述仅仅为简单的“不可抗力/仲裁：适用标准条款”。香港上诉法院认为该约定毫无意义，因为香港法律中不存在可以适用的所谓“标准条款”[2]。

Whether contract provisions clearly describe force majeure events can affect the chances of successfully invoking the force majeure defense. In Sun Wah Oil & Cereals Ltd. v. Gee Tai Trading Co., Ltd., the force majeure clause in the contract at issue merely reads as “Force Majeure/Arbitration: Standard terms shall apply.” The Hong Kong Court of Appeal held that the clause is meaningless because there is no such “standard terms” under Hong Kong law.

有些合同会对构成不可抗力的事件明确列举，例如“战争”、“罢工”、“地震”、“海啸”等语言。如果合同对不可抗力的定义中有“流行病”、“瘟疫”这类具体的表述，则疫情被认定为不可抗力的可能性较大。

Some contracts specifically list events that constitute force majeure, such as “war”, “strike”, “earthquake” and “tsunami”, etc. In such contracts, if the definition of force majeure in the contract includes such specific wordings as “epidemic” or “plague”, the outbreak of novel coronavirus is very likely to be determined as force majeure.

还有一些合同对不可抗力的描述更为笼统，例如“上帝行为”、“政府行为”、“紧急事件”等。一方面，此次疫情中发生的政府防疫措施、世界卫生组织认定的“国际公共卫生紧急事件”等要素都含有不可抗力的属性，可能满足合同中的这一类定义，但是另一方面，这些通用化措辞也存在一定Sun Wal Oil案件中“过于宽泛”的风险。

Other contracts describe force majeure in a more general manner, such as “act of god”, “act of government”, “emergency”, etc. On one hand, relevant factors in the outbreak of novel coronavirus this time, including the government’s anti-epidemic measures, the World Health Organization’s announcement of “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”, all contain characteristics of force majeure. On the other hand, however, these general terms also have the risk of being “overly broad” as in the Sun Wal Oil case.

中国国际贸易促进委员会（CCPIT）自2月6日开始免费为企业出具与肺炎疫情相关的不可抗力事实性证明[3]。但从我们目前了解的情况看，该证明书内容可证明发生了延迟复工、交通管制、劳务用工受限等客观事实，但并没有直接提到“不可抗力”的说法，更无法直接证明企业无法履行合同的具体事实。企业如果希望依赖该证明书减免合同义务，还需提供更多事实证据来证明相关防疫措施与自身无法履行合同之间的因果关系。

Starting from February 6th, the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) will issue coronavirus-related certificate of force majeure for enterprises free of charge. However, from what we have learnt of, although the contents of such certificate can prove the occurrence of certain objective circumstance such as delayed business resumption, traffic control, staffing restrictions, etc., they do not directly use the word “force majeure”, nor can they directly prove the incapacity of enterprises to perform the contract. If enterprises wish to use such certificate to waive their contractual obligations, they must provide more factual evidence to prove the causal relationship between relevant anti-epidemic measures and its inability to perform the contract.

事实上，关于CCPIT开具的不可抗力事实性证明的效力是有案可循的。在Hoecheong Products Co., Ltd. v. Cargill H.K. Ltd.一案中，双方合同约定适用英国法，合同的不可抗力条款约定，卖方因不可抗力无法交付货物时，卖方需提交CCPIT签发的证明。后卖方无法交货，并且也提交了CCPIT出具的不可抗力证明。最终伦敦枢密院司法委员会[4]认定合同中的不可抗力条款仅要求CCPIT证明存在不可抗力事件，所以该证明符合合同约定。虽然该案最终从合同条款解释的角度加以解决，但是也明确了，官方机构的证明仅是不可抗力事件发生的证明，不能直接取代合同无法履行的相关事实证据。也就是说，即便主张不可抗力成就的一方提交了CCPIT出具的不可抗力证明，英国法院还是会考察该不可抗力事件与合同无法履行之间的因果关系。

In fact, there are some precedents regarding the effectiveness of CCPIT’s certificate of force majeure. In Hoecheong Products Co., Ltd. v. Cargill H.K. Ltd., the parties agreed in the contract that British law shall apply, and the force majeure clause in the contract stipulates that where the seller is unable to deliver goods due to force majeure events, it shall provide the certificate of force majeure issued by CCPIT. Thereafter, the seller was unable to deliver goods, and also submitted the certificate of force majeure issued by CCPIT. In the end, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of London held that the force majeure clause in the contract “should be understood as requiring only that CCPIT should attest the occurrence of the force majeure event” and the certificate was “in compliance of the clause”. Although the case was finally solved by interpreting contract provisions, it nevertheless demonstrated that such authoritative certificate can only prove the occurrence of force majeure event, but cannot replace the factual evidence for the failure of performance. In another word, even if the party claiming force majeure submits certificate of force majeure issued by CCPIT, the British court will still investigate the causal relationship between force majeure event and the failure of performance.

企业主张不可抗力条款时，还应注意合同条款或适用法律是否还有其他的要求。例如，常见的义务还包括受不可抗力影响的一方应在合理时限内通知另一方，并且还应尽“合理的努力”来防止或减少损失等。如未能遵守这些要求，企业仍可能需要对相应的损失承担责任。

When an enterprise invokes force majeure clause, it also needs to pay attention to other requirements stipulated by contract provisions or applicable laws. For example, common obligations include that the party affected by force majeure shall notify the other party within a reasonable time, and use “reasonable endeavors” to prevent or mitigate losses. If the enterprise fails to comply with these requirements, it may still be liable for relevant losses.

II. Where the contract is silent on force

 majeure clause

虽然合同并未特别约定不可抗力条款，但如果合同双方选择适用的法律有法定的不可抗力规则，则违约一方可以依照法定事由主张免责，这一情形多见于选择适用大陆法系国家的法律，例如中国法、德国法等。在国际货物贸易合同中大量适用的《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》对不可抗力也有具体的约定。《公约》第七十九条即规定：“当事人对不履行义务，不负责任，如果他能证明此种不履行义务，是由于某种非他所能控制的障碍，而且对于这种障碍，没有理由预期他在订立合同时能考虑到或能避免或克服它或它的后果”。但是统计数据表明，在诉讼中援引这一条款的成功率并不高[5]。

Where a contract does not specifically stipulate the force majeure clause, but the governing law chosen by the parties provides force majeure rules, the party in breach can claim exemption of liability based on statutory causes, which is common when the applicable governing law is the law of civil law countries, such as Chinese law, German law, etc. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, which is widely used in contracts for international sale of goods, also has specific provisions on force majeure. Specifically, Article 79 of the Convention stipulates that: “a party is not liable for a failure to perform any of his obligations if he proves that the failure was due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences.” However, statistics show that the chances of successfully invoking such clause are not high in litigation.

如前所述，即使不可抗力是法定的免责理由，由于每个企业受到疫情影响的方式和程度各不相同，仍应围绕具体情况是否符合法定条件进行举证。目前，在中国境内认定疫情构成不可抗力的情况相对乐观，但应考虑到中国本身作为疫情国，对受疫情影响的企业进行保护存在一定的政策导向。而在其他大陆法系国家，相关仲裁庭或法院会持何种态度仍取决于具体情形，不能一概而论。

As discussed above, even if force majeure is a statutory cause of exemption, since each enterprise suffers from coronavirus in different way and to different extent, it shall provide evidence to prove whether its specific situation meets statutory requirements. At present, most people are holding relatively optimistic altitudes toward the question whether the outbreak of novel coronavirus constitutes force majeure in China. However, it should be noted that China is in epidemic situation itself, so it has certain policy preference to protect enterprises affected by the coronavirus outbreak. In other civil law countries, the attitude of arbitral tribunal or court still depends on the specific facts and cannot be generalized.

如果合同适用英美法系且合同本身没有不可抗力条款，当事人仅能通过合同落空理论来寻求救济。该理论来源于经典的Krell v. Henry一案：某游客花费比其他房间高昂数倍的价格租了一间可以观赏爱德华七世加冕游行的房间，但由于爱德华七世患病游行取消。酒店起诉游客，要求支付租房费用，该游客就以合同落空为由抗辩。最终法官认为，由于该租赁合同的目的无法达成，免除了游客的租金支付义务。

If the contract is governed by a law of a common law country and the contract itself does not have a force majeure clause, the affected party can only seek relief under the doctrine of frustration. The doctrine comes from the classic Krell v. Henry case. In this case, a tourist rented a hotel room, costing several times more than other rooms, to watch the coronation of Edward VII. However, the coronation was eventually cancelled because of Edward VII’s illness. The hotel sued the tourist for the rent, and the tourist invoked the doctrine of frustration as defense. The judge finally held that the tourist is exempted from the obligation to pay the rent because the purpose of the lease contract was frustrated.

合同落空理论常见的适用情形包括标的物灭失、法律变更、当事人死亡或者失去行为能力、合同目的无法实现等。适用合同落空理论的后果是解除合同，总体而言适用难度很大，有着各方面的限制，包括但不限于以下几点：

Common situations where the doctrine of frustration can apply include destruction of the subject matter, change of law, death or incapacity of a party, impossibility to realize the purpose of contract, etc. The consequence of would be contract termination. Generally speaking, it is very difficult for the doctrine to apply and there are limitations in many aspects, including but not limited to:

根据上述限制，合同落空理论的适用有极高的要求。其中，一大难点在于证明合同不可能履行，此次疫情虽然不可避免会导致合同履行的延迟或成本增加，但能够真正导致完全无法履行合同的情况极少。非典期间在香港发生的一则案例[6]也可以说明法院对采用这一理论的谨慎态度：一位租客因受到10天的强制隔离措施，希望解除一份2年期的租赁合同，但是法院认为隔离期间相比于租期而言仅仅是一小段时间，租客援引合同落空理论未得到法院的支持，其适用难度可见一斑[7]。

Given the above limitations, the application of the doctrine of frustration is very demanding. One of the difficulties is to prove that it is impossible to perform the contract. Although the coronavirus outbreak will inevitably cause the delay of performance or increase of costs, yet under few situations will it result in absolute impossibility to perform the contract. A case in Hong Kong during the SARS also shows the courts’ prudence to apply this doctrine. A tenant subject to a 10-day order of quarantine wished to terminate a two-year lease. The court held that the period of quarantine is very short as compared with the lease period, so the court did not support the tenant in invoking the doctrine of frustration. 

III. Suggestions for enterprises

综上所述，无论是约定事由抗辩、法定事由抗辩或是英美法系中的落空理论抗辩，在主张肺炎疫情构成免责事由时，核心内容还是疫情对合同履行的具体影响如何，这就需要结合具体的合同条款、适用的准据法以及事实情况具体分析。为了应对可能的风险，我们建议做好以下几点：

Based on the above, to claim exemption of contractual obligations due to the outbreak of novel coronavirus, the key is to illustrate specific impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the performance of contract, regardless of whether such defense is based on contract provisions, statutory stipulations, or the doctrine of frustration in common law jurisdiction, and the enterprise should make detailed analysis based on specific contract provisions, governing law and surrounding facts. In case of potential risks, we suggest enterprises to follow these steps: