Force Majeure in Shipping Contracts

Force majeure is a contractual allocation of risk, not a legal doctrine. Under English law, the dominant governing law for international shipping contracts, there is no free-standing force majeure right: a party invoking force majeure must point to an express clause in the contract and satisfy every requirement that clause imposes. That distinction matters enormously in practice. Without a clause, a party facing an extreme external event is left to argue frustration, a common-law doctrine that discharges the whole contract automatically but whose threshold is so high that courts rarely apply it.

This article examines the structure and operation of force majeure clauses in voyage charter parties, time charter parties, bareboat charter parties, sale contracts, and shipbuilding agreements; the English-law doctrine of frustration and the leading authorities; the BIMCO Force Majeure Clause 2022 and the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clauses; the procedural requirements of notice, causation, and mitigation; the distinction from off-hire; and the UK Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in RTI v MUR Shipping, which settled an important question about the “reasonable endeavours” proviso.

Force majeure as a creature of contract

English law treats force majeure as entirely contractual. The phrase itself is a French importation with no independent English-law meaning: it carries whatever content the parties chose to give it when they drafted the clause. This contrasts with French law, where Article 1218 of the Civil Code creates a statutory force majeure right applicable to all contracts, and with German law, where BGB §313 allows adjustment or termination for a fundamental disturbance of the basis of the transaction. Under English law, the parties to a charterparty or sale contract bear the full responsibility of defining which events qualify, what the affected party must do, what relief is available, and how long the relief lasts.

The practical consequence is that force majeure clauses in English-law shipping contracts are construed strictly. Courts will not read in relief that the clause does not expressly provide. The burden of proof lies on the party invoking force majeure to establish each element of the clause: that the event occurred, that it fell within the definition, that it caused the prevention or hindrance, that notice was given as required, and that mitigation was attempted.

The common-law doctrine of frustration

Because force majeure requires an express clause, the common-law doctrine of frustration remains relevant for contracts that lack one, and it defines the outer boundary of risk allocation even where a clause exists.

A contract is frustrated when performance becomes radically different from what was bargained for as a result of an unforeseen supervening event for which neither party is responsible. The leading formulation comes from Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696: “It is not hardship or inconvenience or material loss itself which calls the principle of frustration into play. There must be as well such a change in the significance of the obligation that the thing undertaken would, if performed, be a different thing from that contracted for.”

The threshold is deliberately high. Increased cost, longer voyage time, and reduced profitability do not frustrate a charterparty. The House of Lords confirmed this in Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] AC 93, where sellers of Sudanese groundnuts argued that the closure of the Suez Canal in 1956 frustrated a CIF contract requiring shipment from Port Sudan to Hamburg. The House of Lords disagreed. The goods could still be shipped via the Cape of Good Hope. The voyage was longer and more expensive, but it was not a radically different contractual adventure. The principle: inconvenience and added cost are not enough.

The Court of Appeal in Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlef von Appen GmbH v Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH (The Sea Angel) [2007] EWCA Civ 1714 examined frustration of a charterparty when the vessel was detained by Indian customs authorities after a ship-breaking voyage. Rix LJ reviewed the doctrine in full and restated the multi-factorial test: the court must look at the nature of the contract, the supervening event, the parties’ reasonable expectations, the allocation of risk already made by the contract’s terms, and the justice of holding the parties to their bargain. The Sea Angel was detained for approximately five weeks. The court held the charterparty was not frustrated: the detention, though inconvenient, was not so extreme as to make performance radically different, and the risk of governmental interference had been allocated by the contract’s trading-area clauses.

When frustration does apply, it discharges the contract automatically at the moment of the frustrating event. Neither party needs to give notice or invoke the doctrine: the discharge is immediate and operates by operation of law. The financial consequences are governed by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, which allows recovery of money paid before discharge (subject to allowance for expenses already incurred) and compensation for valuable benefits conferred before the event.

Frustration versus force majeure: the structural difference

The table below sets out the principal distinctions.

The practical difference in shipping is acute. A party hoping to invoke force majeure to suspend its obligations and preserve the contract while an obstacle passes will find frustration far too blunt an instrument: frustration kills the contract entirely. A force majeure clause, by contrast, can be designed to buy time, suspend specific obligations (laytime counting, demurrage accrual, hire payment), and offer a termination right only if the event persists beyond a defined threshold.

Structure of a force majeure clause

A well-drafted shipping force majeure clause has five structural elements.

Trigger events

The clause lists the events that qualify. Typical lists cover: war (declared or undeclared); hostilities; blockade; civil war; revolution; riots; acts of terrorism; acts of God; natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions); extreme weather; epidemic or pandemic; government action (embargo, prohibition, export or import ban); sanctions; strikes and labour disputes (port or beyond); and specific shipping hazards (port closures, canal closure, ice). The list is the primary battleground: events outside it receive no protection. After the COVID-19 pandemic revealed gaps in many existing clauses, BIMCO and other parties began explicitly listing “epidemic” and “pandemic” as separate triggers.

Some clauses use a catch-all formulation: “any other event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected.” Courts read catch-all provisions ejusdem generis with the listed events: the catch-all captures events of the same type as those specifically listed, not any external inconvenience. Parties wishing broader coverage must draft it explicitly.

The causation test

The event must have caused the effect on performance. Most clauses use the word “prevented” or the phrase “prevented or hindered.” These are different standards. “Prevented” requires impossibility or near-impossibility: performance must be blocked, not merely made more difficult. “Hindered” is a lower threshold: performance is impeded to a significant degree even if not wholly prevented. The difference matters when an alternative route or method remains available.

The causation test also requires that the event be the operative cause. If performance would have been impossible for other reasons unconnected with the force majeure event, the clause does not apply. And if the party invoking force majeure contributed to the impossibility by its own conduct, the defence fails: self-induced force majeure is not available.

Notice requirements

The notice obligation is, in practice, among the most litigated elements of force majeure. The House of Lords addressed notice rigorously in Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Vanden Avenne-Izegem PVBA [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 109, a case involving a GAFTA prohibition clause. The sellers failed to give notice of a US export embargo within the time the clause required. The House of Lords held that where the clause makes notice a condition precedent to the right to relief, late notice disqualifies the party from relying on force majeure for the period that elapsed before notice was given. The rule is strict. A party that waits to assess whether the event will resolve itself, or that sends informal communications rather than a formal notice, may lose its protection entirely.

Standard notice clauses require written notice within a specified period (typically 48 hours to 14 days from the date the affected party knew or should have known of the event); identification of the event; description of its effect on performance; an estimate of likely duration; and, in some clauses, specification of the mitigation steps being taken. The BIMCO Force Majeure Clause 2022 requires the affected party to give notice “as soon as reasonably possible” after the onset of the event, with updates if circumstances change.

The mitigation and reasonable-endeavours proviso

Most force majeure clauses require the affected party to take reasonable steps to overcome the event or to minimize its effects. This is sometimes expressed as a duty to use “best endeavours” or “reasonable endeavours.” The content of that duty was significantly clarified by the UK Supreme Court in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18.

MUR Shipping (the owner) sought to invoke a force majeure clause when US OFAC sanctions made it difficult for the charterer, RTI Ltd, to pay hire in US dollars. The clause required MUR to use reasonable endeavours to overcome the force majeure event. RTI argued that MUR was obliged under that proviso to accept payment in euros instead of the US dollars specified in the charterparty, because accepting euros would have removed the practical obstacle entirely. The Supreme Court, overruling the Court of Appeal, rejected that argument. Lord Hamblen and Lord Burrows, giving the leading judgment, held that a reasonable-endeavours proviso requires a party to take steps within the boundaries of the contract as written. It does not require accepting non-contractual performance from the other party. RTI had no right to tender euros: the contract specified US dollars. Requiring MUR to accept euros as a condition of invoking force majeure would be to rewrite the contract’s payment obligations under the guise of a mitigation duty. The decision is important for every force majeure clause that includes a similar proviso: the proviso extends to steps the affected party can take, not to substitutions the counterparty wishes to offer.

The mitigation duty does, however, require genuine effort. A party that makes no attempt to explore alternative routes, alternative cargo, or alternative scheduling will struggle to prove it was “prevented” by the event rather than simply discouraged by the inconvenience.

Consequences: suspension, extension, and termination

The clause must specify what happens once force majeure is validly invoked. Three tiers are typical. First, specified obligations are suspended for the duration of the event: laytime ceases to count, hire may be suspended (though suspension of hire is rarer in standard forms), demurrage stops accruing, performance deadlines are extended. Second, if the event persists beyond a threshold period (commonly 30, 60, or 90 days), either party may terminate the contract by written notice. Third, termination relieves both parties of future obligations but does not resurrect accrued liabilities from before the force majeure event.

The allocation of costs during the suspension period depends on the contract. Under a voyage charter, owners typically bear vessel operating costs; under a time charter, whether hire continues depends on whether the force majeure clause suspends it (it usually does not, unless specifically drafted to do so).

The BIMCO Force Majeure Clause 2022

BIMCO revised its standard force majeure clause in 2022 to address gaps exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, evolving sanctions regimes, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The 2022 clause has the following main features.

The list of qualifying events is extended to include epidemic and pandemic as standalone triggers (previously they appeared only in the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clauses). Sanctions are treated as a separate trigger with a definition keyed to the UN, EU, and US OFAC sanctions lists, plus any national sanctions adopted by the flag state or the jurisdiction governing the contract. The clause uses the “prevented or hindered” causation standard throughout, meaning a party can invoke it for significant impediment to performance, not just total blockage.

The notice regime requires notification “as soon as reasonably possible” and mandates updates every 14 days while the event continues. This addresses the criticism of older clauses that allowed parties to give initial notice and then go silent. The mitigation obligation requires the affected party to “take all reasonable steps to overcome or circumvent the force majeure event,” explicitly including alternative routing where that is reasonable. The 2022 clause does not define what “reasonable” means in context, leaving that to the facts of each case, but the RTI v MUR Shipping decision clarifies that it does not extend to accepting non-contractual performance.

Termination becomes available after 30 continuous days unless the parties agree otherwise. Once either party exercises the termination right, the contract ends prospectively.

The BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clauses

BIMCO published dedicated infectious disease clauses for time charter parties and voyage charter parties: the Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause for Time Charter Parties 2015 and the Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause for Voyage Charter Parties 2015. These pre-dated the COVID-19 pandemic and were prompted by the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. They address scenarios specifically relevant to crew health and port access rather than the broader commercial disruption a pandemic creates.

The time charter version defines a “disease” trigger as a declaration of an epidemic or pandemic by the World Health Organization or a competent national authority. If the vessel calls at an affected port or if crew members are affected, the clause reallocates between owner and charterer certain costs (deviations, port health fees, quarantine expenses, crew repatriation). Critically, it does not automatically suspend hire: the time-charter fundamental principle that hire runs unless specific off-hire events occur is preserved.

These clauses proved insufficient during COVID-19 for the broader disruptions: port congestion caused by health protocols, blanket port-state entry restrictions, and crew change impossibility were not squarely covered by the 2015 disease clauses. The BIMCO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Clause 2020 addressed the immediate gaps, and the 2022 Force Majeure Clause incorporated pandemic as a general trigger.

Force majeure in voyage charterparties

A voyage charter is most exposed to force majeure because performance (loading, carrying, and discharging a specific cargo on a defined route) is tied to specific physical locations and a specific timeline. The main force majeure interactions arise in three places.

Laytime and demurrage are the most commercially significant. The demurrage clock runs from the expiry of laytime regardless of what has caused the delay. Force majeure clauses in voyage charters typically list events that stop laytime counting and that also prevent demurrage accruing: strikes at the loading or discharging port, breakdown of loading or discharging equipment caused by an external event, acts of God. The drafting must be precise. A clause that stops laytime but does not expressly stop demurrage will leave the owner earning demurrage through an event outside the charterer’s control. For a detailed treatment of laytime calculation, see laytime and reversible laytime and despatch.

Route and port. If the agreed route becomes unavailable (canal closure, war zone, government restriction), the clause typically allows the owner to proceed by an alternative route. The additional voyage cost and hire of time are the point of negotiation: a voyage charter’s freight is typically a lump sum, so an owner routing via the Cape instead of Suez bears the extra cost unless the clause allocates it otherwise. Tsakiroglou confirmed that additional routing cost alone does not frustrate the contract. A force majeure clause can be drafted to trigger cost-sharing or freight adjustment in that scenario, but standard forms vary on this.

Cargo availability and government action. Export bans, embargo orders, and port-health quarantine restrictions can prevent the charterer from loading cargo. The Sea Cargo Charter (the international bulk shipping market’s sustainability charter, not to be confused with a charterparty instrument) and most standard voyage forms treat government action as a force majeure event on the charterer’s side, with notice obligations and termination rights if the prohibition persists.

Force majeure in time charterparties

The time charter party creates different force majeure dynamics because hire runs continuously. The NYPE 2015 form contains a standard off-hire clause and a separate force majeure provision that interact in practice.

Off-hire operates on the vessel: hire is suspended when the ship is not in the full working state described in the charter. Mechanical breakdown, grounding, crew illness (where it incapacitates the ship), detention under arrest, and similar vessel-side events trigger off-hire. Force majeure in a time charter typically covers external events that prevent the charterer’s intended employment of the vessel: port closures, government trading restrictions, war-zone exclusions. The two regimes do not automatically overlap. A vessel that cannot trade to a specific port because of government sanctions is not automatically off-hire: whether hire is suspended depends on whether the force majeure clause expressly suspends it. Most time-charter forms do not suspend hire for external force majeure events; the charterer pays hire for the period, which is the risk the charterer accepts in taking a time charter.

The BIMCO CONWARTIME 2013 and VOYWAR 2013 war-risk clauses work alongside force majeure provisions to address war-zone exclusions. The owner has the right to refuse the vessel’s entry to a war-risk area; the charterer’s force majeure obligation, if it was routing to such an area, is triggered. The interplay between these clauses determines whether hire continues and who bears the cost of deviation.

Force majeure in sale contracts

The law governing sale of goods differs from charterparty law in one important respect: the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.7 automatically discharges a contract for specific goods if the goods perish before the risk passes to the buyer. This is a statutory frustration-like provision for sale of specific (as opposed to generic) goods. For contracts for generic cargo, no statutory relief applies and the party must rely on a contractual force majeure clause.

The GAFTA and FOSFA standard commodity sale forms contain detailed force majeure provisions that have generated substantial case law. Bremer v Vanden (above) arose under a GAFTA form. These forms typically require very prompt notice (in some GAFTA forms, within 7 days of the event), and the cases consistently enforce strict notice conditions. Parties trading agricultural commodities into or out of sanctions-affected territories after February 2022 triggered these notice obligations on tight timelines.

Force majeure in shipbuilding contracts

Shipbuilding contracts have their own force majeure tradition, heavily influenced by the SAJ Standard Form and the BIMCO/Shipbuilders’ forms. The typical shipbuilding force majeure clause is more permissive than charterparty provisions in one respect: it commonly allows the builder an extension of the delivery date (a “permissible delay”) for force majeure events without triggering the buyer’s cancellation right.

Standard shipbuilding force majeure events include: fire, earthquake, flood, explosion; war and hostilities; strikes or lockouts at the shipyard or at subcontractors’ premises; government actions and restrictions; and blockade or epidemic. The buyer’s cancellation right typically arises after a defined aggregate delay (12 months in many standard forms) not caused by any of these events. A shipyard that suffers a force majeure event adds that time to the permissible delay period, protecting it against cancellation.

The COVID-19 pandemic produced a wave of delivery date renegotiations in shipbuilding. Supply-chain disruptions (steel, electronics, marine equipment) triggered shipyard force majeure clauses, and buyers and builders negotiated aggregate delay extensions. Where extensions exceeded contractual caps, parties had to choose between renegotiation and formal dispute.

Sanctions as force majeure: the 2022 Russia-Ukraine context

The sanctions regime imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 created one of the most extensive force majeure events in modern shipping history. EU, UK, and US sanctions targeted Russian-flagged vessels, Russian-owned vessels, Russian commodity cargoes (oil, grain, coal, fertiliser), Russian ports, and a range of named counterparties.

Charter parties affected fell into several categories. Contracts with Russian counterparties (either charterer or shipowner designated under the sanctions lists) were void if performed. Contracts for Russian-origin cargoes became unperformable as trading restrictions tightened. Contracts requiring calls at Russian ports became operationally impossible for owners subject to EU or UK law.

The force majeure and sanctions clauses in those contracts were invoked on tight timelines. Notice obligations under BIMCO standard sanctions clauses required identification of the specific sanction, description of impact, and an election between suspension and termination. The RTI v MUR Shipping case, decided in 2024, arose from precisely this context: MUR owned a vessel that chartered to RTI for the carriage of bauxite from Guinea to Ukraine, and OFAC sanctions made US dollar payments impractical. The Supreme Court’s decision that MUR was not required to accept euro payments to continue performance is the controlling authority on the reasonable-endeavours proviso for the current generation of BIMCO and bespoke clauses.

Burden of proof

The party invoking force majeure bears the burden. The elements to prove are: (1) the qualifying event occurred; (2) it falls within the clause’s definition; (3) it was the proximate cause of the prevention or hindrance; (4) the party gave notice as required; (5) it took reasonable steps to mitigate. Courts and arbitrators require evidence at each stage. A party that gives notice in vague terms, without identifying the specific qualifying event, may lose on element (2). A party that took no steps to explore workarounds may lose on element (5).

Causation is where the most contested cases arise. If the party invoking force majeure would have been unable to perform for other reasons (financial difficulty, shortage of cargo, vessel breakdown), the force majeure event is not the cause. Arbitrators look at the “but for” test: but for the force majeure event, would performance have been possible?

Force majeure and off-hire: the distinction

Off-hire in time charters is commonly misunderstood as a synonym for force majeure. It is not. Off-hire is a distinct contractual mechanism suspending hire when the vessel is not earning it because of a vessel-side deficiency. The standard NYPE form lists: “damage to hull, machinery or equipment, deficiency of men or stores, fire, breakdown or damages to hull, machinery or equipment, grounding, detention by average accidents to ship or cargo.” These are vessel-side events. External events (sanctions, port closure, war zone) do not automatically trigger off-hire under standard forms.

A charterer who cannot trade the vessel because a government has closed the intended port cannot put the vessel off-hire; the charterer must pay hire while arguing that the force majeure clause excuses its own non-performance of voyage orders. The off-hire and force majeure regimes protect different parties and different interests. For detailed off-hire treatment, see off-hire and performance claims.

The interaction with P&I cover and insurance

P&I clubs cover third-party liabilities: cargo claims, crew injury, pollution, and collision. A force majeure event that causes cargo damage or crew harm creates a potential P&I claim independent of the contractual force majeure position. The P&I clubs and the International Group have addressed specific force majeure scenarios (piracy, war, pandemic) through club circulars and rule amendments.

War risks insurance (Institute War and Strikes Clauses) is specifically designed to cover losses arising from force majeure events on the war-risk spectrum. Hull and machinery underwriters note the war exclusion in standard hull policies (Institute Hull Clauses cl. 24): losses arising from war, strikes, piracy, and similar events require separate war-risk cover. Owners operating in areas where force majeure events are likely (Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, certain West African offshore areas) need both standard and war-risk cover to avoid an uninsured force majeure gap.

Loss-of-hire insurance can cover the period a vessel is idle because of a force majeure event, but the deductible (typically 14 days) means short events are uninsured. The force majeure clause in the charterparty and the loss-of-hire policy must be read together: if force majeure suspends hire, the owner may be without income for the force majeure period and must rely on insurance to cover vessel operating costs.

Civil-law force majeure: the contrast

English law’s contractual approach contrasts with civilian systems that recognize statutory force majeure. French Civil Code Article 1218 (as revised in 2016) requires that the event be unforeseeable at the time of contracting, irresistible at the time of performance, and external to the debtor. When those three conditions are met, French law automatically suspends the obligation; if the obstacle is permanent, the contract is dissolved with neither party liable. The French approach is more generous than English frustration but less flexible than contractual force majeure: parties cannot exclude it entirely, though they can modify its conditions by contract.

German law addresses radical changed circumstances under BGB §313 (Stoerung der Geschaeftsgrundlage), which allows the court to adjust or terminate the contract when fundamental assumptions have changed. This is broader than either frustration or French force majeure, but courts apply it sparingly to commercial contracts where sophisticated parties are expected to have allocated the relevant risk.

Contracts governed by English law but between parties from civilian jurisdictions can produce disagreement about which force majeure standard applies. English courts applying English law apply the contract’s express clause and the English frustration doctrine, not the domestic force majeure standards of the parties’ home countries. The governing-law clause in the charterparty is decisive.

Procedural checklist for effective force majeure invocation

A party facing a potential force majeure event needs to move quickly.

First, check the contract. The checklist reads: does the clause exist; which events qualify; what are the notice timelines; what does “prevented or hindered” require; what is the mitigation obligation; and what are the consequences if the event persists. Checking the clause sounds obvious but under commercial pressure it is frequently done imprecisely.

Second, give notice promptly. Under Bremer v Vanden, late notice costs the right to relief for the delay already incurred. Where the clause states a specific notice period (say, 5 days), the clock runs from the moment the party knew or should have known of the event. Notice should be in writing, addressed to the correct counterparty, and should identify: the specific event, the specific contractual obligations affected, the expected duration, and the mitigation steps being taken or planned.

Third, document everything. Statement of facts from port agents, weather certificates (NMI, DNVGL, or flag state meteorological authority), official government orders or sanctions designations, and ship’s log entries all build the causation record. For piracy-related events, official maritime authority reports (UKMTO, IMB) are standard documentation.

Fourth, continue to mitigate. Alternative ports, alternative cargo, alternative routing: if any of these is available, the mitigation obligation requires exploring them. The party that accepts the first difficulty and stops looking undermines its force majeure defence.

Fifth, update the counterparty regularly. BIMCO 2022 requires 14-day updates; even clauses that do not require it benefit from documented communication.

For vessels impacted by force majeure events in ways that affect notice of readiness tendering or statement of facts documentation, those operational records become part of the force majeure evidence base.

Drafting considerations for modern clauses

Several areas deserve specific attention in current clause drafting.

Pandemic. Post-COVID, any clause that does not expressly name epidemic and pandemic as qualifying events is underprotected. The event should include both the disease itself and government action taken in response to it (port closures, quarantine orders, crew-change restrictions). The causation standard should be “prevented or hindered,” not “prevented,” to cover impediments short of impossibility.

Sanctions. The sanctions trigger should be defined by reference to the applicable sanctions regimes (UN, EU, UK, US OFAC) and should include designations of parties as well as goods and territories. The consequences should distinguish between the case where the owner cannot trade (owner’s force majeure) and the case where the charterer cannot trade (charterer’s force majeure): the hire-and-cost implications differ in each direction.

Reasonable-endeavours proviso. After RTI v MUR Shipping, it is clear that “reasonable endeavours to overcome the force majeure event” does not require accepting non-contractual performance. Parties wanting to require acceptance of alternative payment or alternative performance should draft that obligation explicitly rather than relying on the reasonable-endeavours proviso.

Termination threshold. A 30-day termination trigger suits some trades but not others. Voyage charters for grain shipments on tight seasonal windows may need a 14-day trigger; long-term time charters for complex vessels may want 90 days or more. The threshold should be calibrated to the trade.

Costs during suspension. The standard position (each party bears its own costs) creates hardship when one party is bearing high fixed costs (vessel operating costs, storage costs) through no fault of its own. Negotiated cost-sharing provisions during extended force majeure periods are reasonable where the commercial relationship supports them.

Limitations

This article presents the law as of June 2026. Several matters are ongoing or jurisdiction-specific.

Force majeure case law continues to develop. The RTI v MUR Shipping decision settled the reasonable-endeavours point for English law, but lower court and arbitral decisions on specific clause language continue to add nuance. LMAA and ICC awards on COVID-19 and Russia-Ukraine force majeure events from 2020 to 2024 are still working through publication cycles: the full body of precedent is not yet available.

This article describes English-law principles. Charterparties governed by New York arbitration and US law face different doctrines: commercial impracticability under UCC §2-615, common-law frustration of purpose, and force majeure through contract interpretation. BIMCO clauses are used in US-law contracts but their interpretation under English and US law can diverge.

Sanctions regimes change rapidly. The designations current at any given date can differ from those in force when a force majeure event arises or when a contract is drafted. Parties should check current OFAC, EU, and UK OFSI lists before relying on sanctions-based force majeure analysis.

This article is general reference material and does not constitute legal advice. For disputes involving substantial sums, parties should consult maritime solicitors with experience in LMAA arbitration.

See also

Related wiki articles

• Voyage Charter Party
• Time Charter Party
• Bareboat Charter Party
• Laytime
• Demurrage
• Reversible Laytime and Despatch
• Off-Hire and Performance Claims
• Notice of Readiness
• Statement of Facts
• Hague-Visby Rules: Bills of Lading
• Bill of Lading
• Letter of Indemnity in Shipping
• P&I Clubs and the International Group
• Maritime Piracy and BMP
• NYPE 2015 Time Charter Form
• Charter Party Speed and Consumption Warranties
• Sea Cargo Charter
• Maritime Lien and Ship Arrest