You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 23, 2020

The Impact of COVID-19 and Other Extraordinary Events on Contractual Performance

Subscribe to Updates

The dawn of the new decade brought with it familiar expectations of prosperity in global and regional commerce. This expectation has resonated throughout the ASEAN region and Thailand in particular, an historical favorite in the region for tourism and business investment. By the close of 2019 tourism numbers were at historic highs and investment in business and infrastructure were on the rebound, with parties to contracts in the region from both within and outside Thailand committing substantial resources to existing or contemplated commercial contracts.

But extraordinary events can disrupt even the most favorable of economic pictures. COVID-19 and its rapid escalation into a global pandemic has had a significant impact, not only on the global economic outlook, but also on regional operators’ business plans. The Thai government, following the lead of the WHO and other regional and global players, has employed measures to limit travel and public gatherings and in some cases has even restricted access to government functions. These measures, along with measures implemented by other countries, have caused unprecedented business disruptions affecting business operators in ways that may significantly impair their ability to meet their commercial contract obligations. But does this and similar global shocks constitute an excuse for nonperformance of commercial contracts? The answer lies largely in an analysis of the law of force majeure  and impossibility.

Force Majeure and Business Disruptions

Force majeure  is defined broadly as an event that could not have been reasonably anticipated and is otherwise beyond a party’s control. This is codified in Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code. Thai statutory law does not provide a list of specific instances that constitute force majeure , but the Thai Supreme Court has found that a party may be excused from certain contractual obligations in instances of widespread fire, flooding, extreme natural disruptions, extraordinary acts of government, and in periods of significant unrest. What is certain, however, is that the Thai Supreme Court has historically taken a conservative stance and has ruled that a party is excused from performance obligations in only a minority of force majeure  disputes. For this reason, parties wishing to avoid the uncertainty of the courts’ interpretation of force majeure  should consider including specific force majeure  clauses in their contracts.

Many commercial contracts, particularly in construction and supply of goods, contain some form of standard force majeure  clause. These clauses typically include a specific but limited list of events that are not within the control of the contracting parties. These may include events such as acts of God, war, and terrorism; but epidemics or pandemics, while increasingly common, are still not included in many force majeure  clauses. That said, specific force majeure  provisions are typically more inclusive than statutory force majeure  law and, as such, provide more certainty to contracting parties in the case of extraordinary events covered by the provision. While a specific force majeure  provision is preferred, it should be noted that statutory force majeure  law will be applied even where the contract is silent.

Impossibility

Thai statutory law further provides that if a contractual obligation becomes impossible to perform due to a future circumstance for which the party is not responsible, then that party may be excused from performance. For example, if performance becomes impossible due to a force majeure  or similar event, then a party would not be at fault for failure to perform under the contract. Neither would that party be entitled to compensation under the contract.

While there exist exceptions to the rule of impossibility, such as for certain specially ordered and manufactured products, the general rule may apply, provided that a party has done all that is reasonable under the circumstances, has not contributed to the breach, and could not have reasonably anticipated the events resulting in the impossibility of performance.

COVID-19

While the Thai Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the case of a healthcare pandemic as a basis for force majeure , it is widely believed that, given the extraordinary impact COVID-19 has had to date, the pandemic may indeed constitute a force majeure  event on which a party could rely in arguing that it should be excused from its contractual obligations, regardless of specific reference in a contract. The analysis does not end simply with a determination of force majeure , however.

Even where an event qualifies as a force majeure  event under statute or contract, resulting in an impossibility to perform, a dispute must nonetheless be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a party should be excused from performance of a given contract. For example, the law requires that a party seeking to avail itself of force majeure  as an excuse for nonperformance has an obligation to take reasonable care in seeking to limit and otherwise mitigate the effect of the force majeure  event. This can mean having contingency plans in place, being reasonably adaptive to developing events, and generally doing all that is reasonably necessary to seek to meet its contractual obligations. It is not enough to simply stand by and claim excuse from contractual obligations due to the unforeseen event. In fact, even some global emergencies may not impair a party’s ability to find alternative means to meet its contractual obligations, while in others the disruptions may indeed make it impossible to perform. Each situation and contract is unique, and these differences and the reactions of parties are critical in determining whether a court will impose some obligation on a party under the contract even where an event is defined clearly as force majeure .

COVID-19 represents an unprecedented shock to the world economy and to individual commercial contract obligations. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of planning, evaluation, and adaptation to limit legal uncertainties for businesses reliant on good-faith agreements with their business partners. This includes regular review of business plans and contractual provisions, such as force majeure  language, to ensure that business operators are best positioned to deal with legal complications from unexpected business disruptions.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 13, 2025
In today’s digital age, cyberattacks have become a real threat to organizations worldwide. These attacks can range from phishing and malware to ransomware and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. As the frequency and sophistication of these attacks increase, so does the importance of cybersecurity compliance. In the corporate world, compliance refers to the process of ensuring that a company and its employees adhere to all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and ethical practices—but it should not stop there. Compliance should also encompass asset recovery and disciplinary measures, which can both help organizations address incidents effectively and promote good governance. Cyberattacks are malicious attempts to access or damage a computer system or network, often carried out for financial gain, for political activism, or simply to cause disruption. For instance, a successful attack might involve an attacker creating an email address that closely resembles a legitimate one, perhaps by changing only one or two characters. That email address is then inserted into an existing conversation thread, making it appear as if the user with this email address was already part of the discussion. This tactic can easily deceive a recipient into believing the email was sent from a trusted source, thereby leading them to click on malicious links, provide sensitive information, or even make payments in accordance with the attacker’s request or instructions. Phishing attacks like these are particularly dangerous and can have a serious impact on the ongoing business of a corporation because they exploit the trust and familiarity established in the original email chain. Effective Mitigation Approaches Mechanisms for addressing the aftermath of a crisis provide important recourse to affected organizations, but effective compliance mechanisms can minimize the risk of such crises ever occurring. Companies should therefore prioritize preventative measures and implementation of effective crisis management schemes. Various legal
Read More
June 11, 2025
Thailand’s tax dispute resolution framework has undergone a significant transformation with the enactment of the Act Establishing the Tax Court and the Procedure for Tax Cases (No. 3) B.E. 2568. Published in the Government Gazette on May 27, 2025, the amended act will come into force on November 24, 2025, which is 180 days after its publication. The amended act marks a pivotal shift in the jurisdiction and procedures of the Tax Court, most notably by empowering it to adjudicate certain criminal tax cases for the first time. Background and Rationale The Tax Court was originally established in 1985 as a specialized forum to handle complex tax disputes, including those related to revenue, customs, and excise taxes. The creation of the Tax Court recognized the need for judicial expertise in tax law, given its technical and specialized nature. The latest amendment is designed to address procedural inefficiencies, modernize court processes, and align Thailand’s tax litigation system with international standards. The reform demonstrates Thailand’s commitment to enhancing the efficiency, transparency, and fairness of its tax dispute resolution mechanisms. Key Amendments and Provisions Six of the key changes in the amendment are highlighted below. Expansion of jurisdiction to criminal tax cases. The most significant change is the extension of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to include criminal offenses under the Revenue Code, customs law, excise tax law, and other tax-related laws that may be specified by royal decree. New sections in the act explicitly grant the Tax Court authority to hear and decide criminal tax cases, so individuals and entities accused of criminal tax evasion or other tax-related crimes will now have their cases heard by judges with specialized tax expertise. The law also clarifies the Tax Court’s jurisdiction when a single act constitutes multiple offenses (some tax-related, some not) or when
Read More
June 6, 2025
As from July 1, 2025, as part of its ongoing efforts to digitalize and streamline the delivery of public services, the Vietnamese government will officially conduct administrative procedures, both online and offline, only via electronic identity (“e-ID”) accounts on the VNeID platform. In particular: Online administrative procedures carried out via the National Public Service Portal or via information systems for administrative procedures at the ministerial or provincial level are required to be implemented by using e-ID accounts only. When receiving dossiers, authorities will be required to check and verify the e-IDs of companies or individuals responsible for conducting administrative procedures. Further, it is worth noting that to complete the registration of an e-ID account for a company, the legal representative of the company must hold a level-2 e-ID account. Compliance Considerations Vietnam’s first regulation of e-ID accounts for individuals and organizations was issued in Decree No. 59/2022/ND-CP dated September 5, 2022, on electronic authentication and identification. This decree was subsequently replaced by Decree No. 69/2024/ND-CP dated June 25, 2024, which governs the same matters. Registration and operation of e-ID accounts are centralized through VNeID, a digital ID app developed by the National Population Data Center under the Ministry of Public Security of Vietnam. Although the registration of e-ID accounts for companies is not explicitly mandated by law, the absence of an e-ID account may hinder companies from completing administrative procedures, including licensing and reporting obligations. Such non-compliance could consequently result in administrative penalties. To mitigate unexpected non-compliance and administrative fines due to the lack of an e-ID account, companies should be well prepared for and implement the registration of a company e-ID account as soon as possible.
Read More
June 4, 2025
On April 2, 2024, the Cambodian Competition Commission (CCC) issued Decision No. 087 on Requirements and Procedures of Exemptions under the Law on Competition, outlining the requirements and procedures for requesting exemptions for agreements or activities that could prevent, restrict, or distort competition in Cambodia. Franchise agreements often include clauses such as price fixing, exclusive supply arrangements, or territorial restrictions, which could potentially raise concerns under the Law on Competition. Therefore, it is necessary for both franchisors and franchisees to understand how the law applies to their agreements and whether an exemption request may be required. Some arrangements under franchise agreements may fall within the scope of prohibited practices under the Law on Competition. These include horizontal and vertical agreements, abuse of dominant position, and anti-competitive business combination. If a business owner contemplates that their franchise agreement could be interpreted as anti-competitive, they must assess whether to apply for an exemption. Key Criteria for Exemption Under Decision No. 087, the CCC may grant an exemption if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed agreement or activity meets all four of the following conditions: Significant and identifiable benefits: The agreement must provide clear technological, social, or economic benefits such as cost efficiencies, qualitative efficiencies, initiations of new technologies, or environmental and sustainable benefits. Necessity of the agreement/activities: These benefits must not be achievable without the proposed agreement or activity. The applicant must show that prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition are essential to realizing the benefits. Benefits outweigh harm: The positive impacts must significantly outweigh any adverse effects caused by the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition, and the benefits should be likely to materialize within one year. No elimination of competition: The agreement must not eliminate competition in any substantial aspect of goods or services. Application and Supporting Documents
Read More