Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Not long ago, force majeure clauses were often afterthoughts in construction contracts, referring in various ways to potential, unforeseeable and uncontrollable catastrophes, each in one mind's eye as unlikely to then happen as not. After the fact, parties attempted to shoehorn this untested defense to have it apply to a wide range of events — natural and some unnatural. Then came 2020, and with it a new opportunity to put forward a fresh spin on the traditional "force majeure" concept as COVID-19, along with the attendant governmental shutdowns and other actions, brought havoc and uncertainty to the industry. We are only beginning to scratch the surface of the effect on the construction litigation visited on us by COVID-19-related impacts. However, the pandemic and its continuing impact has reinforced the importance of planning for the unexpected — and undefined — when negotiating construction contracts, perhaps even where there is no express force majeure clause to which to point.
Force majeure, and related common law doctrines, trace back to Roman law, which used the term vis major, and held "possibility" to be the limit of all obligations. By 1883, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted force majeure principles when, in The Tornado, 18 U.S. 342, it absolved the owner of a cargo ship from its contractual obligation to deliver freight after the ship was rendered unseaworthy by accidental fire. Though these principles were initially read into contracts that did not explicitly contain "force majeure" clauses, eventually parties began incorporating specific provisions in their agreements in an effort to control the bases for and consequences of excusing performance in certain situations. We are at that point again.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.