不可抗力與合同落空 Force majeure clause and frustration

 不可抗力與合同落空

不可抗力與合同落空原則都能夠免除合同雙方的責任。不可抗力是合同的條款，用來界定什麼時候在雙方沒有過失的情況下合同自動終止。這條款能有效地制定不可抗力的情況發生時應如何處理。另一方面，合同落空為普通法的原則，成立的門檻非常高。不可預見的事情發生導致合同無法繼續進行、或動搖了合同的基礎，跟雙方的預期遠遠不同時，即使合同沒有明確的條款，雙方仍然可憑藉合同落空解除進一步的義務。導致合同落空的情況可以是天災、意外、疫症等，但不僅僅是經濟變化、履行合同義務變得艱難。合同落空成立的話，合同將立刻自動終止，雙方解除合同上進一步的責任。Li Ching Wing v Xuan Yu Xiong [2004] 1 HKC 353中指出，沙士爆發導致租客（該原告）在長達兩年的租約中不能居住十天。即使沙士不可預見，就租約的長度而言原告不能居住十天不能夠說成是根本地改變了訂立合同時可供租客居住兩年的目的，因此合同落空並不成立。

Force majeure clause and frustration

Both force majeure clause and frustration are ways to get away from a contract. Force majeure clause is an express clause provided in a contract which specifies the events which, due not to the fault of either parties, no further performance is required under the contract. It is useful to set out clear mechanism in contracts to set out instances which parties are relieved from further obligations. Frustration, on the other hand, is a common law concept without the need for an express provision of an event which is unforeseeable to the parties that render the contract impossible to continue or becomes fundamentally different from the purposes that were agreed in the contract. The events leading to frustration can be natural hazards or accidents or epidemic, but not simply market fluctuations or enforcements becoming more difficult. The contract is then ended immediately and automatically. This can be illustrated in Li Ching Wing v Xuan Yu Xiong [2004] 1 HKC 353, where the outbreak of SARS was considered unforeseeable, but the plaintiff failed to claim frustration because the purpose of a two-year lease was not frustrated because of a 10-day interruption to the use of the property.