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

December 7, 2020

Impact of COVID-19 on Commercial Contracts in Thailand: Force Majeure

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

COVID-19 has had an economic impact across a wide range of industries, including hospitality, airlines, automotive, construction, logistics, and more, and many performance obligations on contractual parties have been rendered impossible. However, many others—while certainly more difficult, complicated, or expensive—remain literally or legally possible.

While COVID-19 will continue to have a devastating impact on health and economies globally, governments—including Thailand’s—have implemented preventive and responsive measures in an attempt to mitigate that impact. On May 24, 2020, for example, the Committee for Government Procurement and Supplies Management circulated guidelines for the administration of contracts between private parties during the COVID-19 pandemic, announcing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event. The specific period of force majeure in Thailand began with the government’s announcement of a state of emergency on March 26, 2020. See the previous article for more details on this measure.

As market circumstances continue to evolve along with the impact of COVID-19, companies in Thailand are paying special attention to the role force majeure plays in navigating the various legal implications of commercial contracts during the outbreak.

Force Majeure Clauses under Thai Law   

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic many are wondering whether parties will be excused from performance under the doctrine of force majeure, by which parties can be excused from contractual performance that becomes impossible due to an extraordinary or exogenous event.

For contracts that have no force majeure clause, the definition of force majeure under section 8 of the Civil and Commercial Code will automatically be applied. However, parties may negotiate a force majeure clause and establish a course of action to follow in such events of force majeure. This clause can also pertain to things like excuse of liability, right to terminate or revise the contract, and distribution of damages due to force majeure.

Every force majeure clause should be considered and interpreted separately and in light of the contract as a  whole, as the precise terms of that clause will control the outcome. It may be easier to argue COVID-19 has triggered a force majeure clause if the clause expressly includes a pandemic, epidemics, or quarantines as examples of events giving rise to the clause. For example, the WHO categorizing  COVID-19 as a pandemic should lend support to parties seeking to enforce force majeure clauses in contracts that contain the term. In the absence of these examples, a party claiming the benefit of a force majeure clause would first have to demonstrate that COVID-19 is a circumstance that falls within the language of the provision.

Application of Force Majeure

When a company invokes a force majeure clause to excuse its contractual nonperformance, it must show that the contractual obligation in question cannot be performed due to unforeseeable, extraordinary circumstances beyond the company’s control. However, Thai law does not explicitly state that force majeure excuses a contractual party from liability when they cannot perform an obligation.

The party who invokes force majeure will need to establish the following facts:

  • The event that prevents the party from performing the contractual obligation is force majeure and is not caused by the non-performing party;
  • It is not possible to perform the obligation during the force majeure; and
  • After the force majeure event concludes, performance is not possible.

Fulfilling these three factors would make a non-performing party likely to be excused from liability under force majeure. However, force majeure clauses are strictly and narrowly construed, and even if the COVID-19 pandemic or a government order under the state of emergency qualifies as a force majeure event, a party would only be excused if the pandemic or a subsequent order actually delayed or prevented the party from performing.

For example, in Supreme Court Case No. 5353/2552, the defendant purchased chicks and food for chicks from the plaintiff, and agreed to sell the grown chickens back to the plaintiff. The court considered that there were two contracts—one for the sale of chicks and food (with the defendant obligated to pay the price for these items), and the second for the sale of grown chickens from the defendant to the plaintiff. However, the outbreak of avian flu caused the government to order the culling of all chickens in the defendant’s possession. The court considered the avian flu to be a force majeure event, and the culling of the chickens made the defendant’s contractual performance impossible. Thus, the defendant was excused from the contractual obligation to sell the chickens to the plaintiff. However, the defendant’s obligation to pay the price of the chicks and food for chicks (or the monetary obligation) had not been made impossible, so the defendant was held liable for the outstanding price for chicks and their food.

Where performance would likely not be prevented, but merely rendered more difficult or expensive, it would not be excused. Often, the relevant question is whether the additional expense or difficulty would be so great as to make it effectively impossible for the party to perform. From the Thai court’s perspective, having insufficient funds to carry out an obligation is likely not reasonable grounds for releasing a party from a contractual obligation, and raising the issue of force majeure would not help. The court has ruled in many cases that shortage of funds cannot be considered force majeure because the funds should be prepared in the normal course of business.

The Importance of Timing

If force majeure can be demonstrated, the question of when it began will then need to be addressed, but that may not be as simple as one might expect, thanks to the dynamic evolution of COVID-19 and the differences in restrictions across the globe. For example, if performance was to take place in Wuhan, China, the force majeure would commence January 23, 2020, when the central government imposed a lockdown in Wuhan and other cities in Hubei in an effort to quarantine the center of an outbreak. However, if performance was based in Thailand on the same date, it may not be considered impossible because, at that time, the WHO had not yet declared the coronavirus disease a pandemic.

In summary, it is not enough to simply establish force majeure in order to excuse the non-performing party’s liability, as force majeure does not automatically release parties from their contractual liability unless they can establish that the contractual obligation is impossible—something that can have a high burden of proof, and be subject to variation depending on a range of factors.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More
June 25, 2025
In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement,
Read More
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