新冠疫情是否属于不可抗力？东盟十国和印度律师的简答（下）

新冠疫情必然影响国际经贸往来，依据当地的法律法规，疫情的发生可否视为不可抗力事件，并对当事人合同义务产生影响？我们访谈了海外同行，供各企业参考。本篇中涉及新加坡、印度、菲律宾、老挝的法律。

1.Is the legal concept of “force majeure” recognised in your jurisdiction? 贵国法律体系内是否有“不可抗力”的法律概念？

Singapore Law 新加坡法

In Singapore, “force majeure” is a contractual creation – therefore, parties have to expressly agree in their contracts regarding what amounts to a “force majeure” event.

新加坡法下，“不可抗力”系合同术语。因此，合同各方需就类属不可抗力的事项在合同中做出明确规定。

Indian Law 印度法

Yes. However, whether a particular contract can be subject to force majeure event is a matter of interpretation of each contract (see the answer to question 2 below). If the contract does not expressly or impliedly provide for a force majeure event, parties may still be able to rely on the doctrine of frustration (see the answer to question 4 below).

印度法下虽存在不可抗力的概念，但特定合同是否适用不可抗力取决于对具体合同的解释（请参下述第二个问题）。如果合同未明示或默示说明何为不可抗力事项，当事各方仍可援引合同落空原则以纾困。（请参下述第四个问题）

Philippine Law 菲律宾法

Yes.

有

Laos Law 老挝法

Yes.

有.

2.What is the definition of force majeure under the law of your jurisdiction?贵国法律中关于“不可抗力”的定义如何？

Singapore Law 新加坡法

There is no express definition of “force majeure”. Parties are free to agree as to:(a) What events will constitute “force majeure”; and(b) What are the consequences of a “force majeure” event occurring.

新加坡法下并无“不可抗力”的明确定义，而是交给合同各方去达成如下协议：

(a) 何种事项类属“不可抗力”；以及

(b) 发生不可抗力事项的后果为何。

Indian Law 印度法

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not provide for an express definition of “force majeure”. However, the Courts recognise and enforce force majeure clauses. Such clauses fall within the ambit of Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act, which recognises that parties’ obligations under an agreement may be contingent on the happening of certain events.

1872年印度《合同法》没有明确定义不可抗力，但法院承认不可抗力条款的效力。该条款属于印度《合同法》第32条规定的情形，即合同各方在合同下的义务可能需视某些特定事项的发生而变化。

The terms of the agreement in this regard may be express or implied. It will be a matter of construction of the contract whether parties have agreed (expressly or impliedly) that they would stand discharged from their obligations on the happening of certain circumstances.

合同中关于此方面的条款可能是明示抑或默示的。发生特定事项时，合同各方是否可以终止履行其义务取决于对具体合同的解释。

Philippine Law 菲律宾法

A fortuitous event or force majeure refers to events that “could not be foreseen or which, though foreseen were inevitable”. It has also been defined as “an unexpected event or act of God which could neither be foreseen nor resisted”, and as an “accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been expected, could have been prevented.”

偶然事件或不可抗力是指“无法预见或尽管可以预见但不可避免的事件”。它也被定义为“不可预见的事件或不可预见、不可抵抗的天灾”，也被定义为“在无人为干预的情况下完全由自然原因直接造成的意外，该意外无法通过任何合理预见或合理措施来避免”。

Laos Law 老挝法

According to Article 3 of The Law on Contract and Tort in Lao PDR, force majeure means “an unexpected and uncontrolled event, such as flood, thunder storm, earthquake that renders the debtor unable to perform his/her obligations”

根据老挝人民民主共和国《合同及侵权法》第三条，不可抗力，是指“意外的，不受控制的，以致使债务人无法履行其义务的事件，例如洪水，雷暴，地震”。

If either contracting party breaches the contract, the default party shall be liable to compensate the other contracting party for the damage caused, except where such breach arises out of force majeure.”

除因不可抗力不能履行合同的，违约的当事人一方，应对另一方当事人承担赔偿损失的违约责任。

3.The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared that the Novel Coronavirus outbreak constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), does the current epidemic constitute a force majeure event under the law of your jurisdiction?鉴于世界卫生组织已宣布新冠疫情构成“国际公共卫生紧急事件”，该疫情在贵国是否构成不可抗力事件？

Singapore Law 新加坡法

The question of whether such a PHEIC will constitute a “force majeure” event will depend on the terms of parties’ agreement.

尽管世卫组织宣布新冠疫情构成“国际公共卫生紧急事件”，但疫情是否构成不可抗力事件仍取决于合同的条款。

Indian Law 印度法

The question of whether such a PHEIC will constitute a “force majeure” event will depend on the terms (express or implied) of the parties’ agreement.

尽管世卫组织宣布新冠疫情构成“国际公共卫生紧急事件”，但疫情是否构成不可抗力事件仍取决于合同的条款。

Philippine Law 菲律宾法

Yes, it could constitute a force majeure event and excuse a breach of an obligation if the following requisites are met: (1) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (2) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable.; (3) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.

如满足下列条件，该事件可能构成不可抗力，并可使债务人免除违约责任：

(a) 债务人对违约并无故意或过失；

(b) 该事件不可预见或不可避免；

(c) 该事件致使债务人无法正常的履行其合同义务；

(d) 债务人并未致使或加重债权人的损失

Laos Law 老挝法

The epidemic by itself would not “…render the debtor unable to perform his/her obligations”. The position may change if the Government intervenes and implements measures which impair the ability of the parties from performing their obligations under the contract.

我们认为，疫情本身并不满足“致使债务人无法履行义务”的要件。但，如政府介入并采取措施致使当事人一方或多方无法履行其合同义务，我们的观点可能会随之改变。

4.Other than force majeure, does the current epidemic constitute any circumstance that releases the non-performing party to a contract from the liability of breach or mitigate such liablity? If so, please briefly explain thatcircumstance.除不可抗力外，新冠疫情是否有可能构成其他可减轻或免除未妥善履行合同一方当事人违约责任的事由？如有，请简要叙述。

Singapore Law 新加坡法

Singapore law recognises the doctrine of frustration, by which parties will be discharged from the contracts if the parties’ agreement can be said to have been frustrated. To show that a contract has been frustrated, it is necessary to show that:a. Performance under the contract must have been rendered radically different from that which was originally undertaken.b. The frustrating event must not have been brought about by the act or default of the party seeking to rely on it; andc. The frustrating event must not have been foreseeable or foreseen.Parties may be able to rely on the doctrine of frustration in respect of a PHEIC, provided that the all three elements above are satisfied. In this regard, whether PHEIC is a “foreseeable” or “foreseen” event may depend on the nature of the contract.

新加坡法认可合同落空原则。如合同落空，各方可据此终止该合同。为证明合同落空，需满足下述标准：

(a) 因该事项，此情况下履约与原定合同下履约有极大的区别；

(b) 该合同落空事件非由寻求援引合同落空的当事人所致；

(c) 该落空事项需不可预见或并未被预见；

如上述三个标准得以满足，则当事人在此次疫情中可援引合同落空原则。当然，该“国际公共卫生紧急事件”是否可预见或已被预见需视合同性质所定。

Courts will also take into consideration whether the “force majeure” provisions in the contract (if any) address a PHEIC or similar events in determining whether a PHEIC can be said to be a frustrating event. For example, if the contract expressly includes PHEIC as a “force majeure” event, then the doctrine of frustration will usually have no application. The effect of the PHEIC will then be determined in accordance with the “force majeure” clause.

在决定疫情是否构成合同落空事项的时候，法院将考虑合同中是否将“国际公共卫生紧急事件”或类似情形列入不可抗力条款（如有）。举例来说，如合同明示“国际公共卫生紧急事件”是一种不可抗力，则不需援引合同落空原则，而可以直接依据不可抗力原则处理相关纠纷。

Indian Law 印度法

Indian law recognises the doctrine of frustration by way of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, which provides that a contract becomes void if performance becomes impossible or unlawful due to a change in circumstances beyond the control of the parties after the contract has been executed. The word “impossible” is not a literal impossibility, but a practical impossibility. The Court will consider whether the event or change of circumstance that has occurred is one, which is so fundamental as striking at the root of the contract as a whole.
Therefore, even if a PHEIC does not fall within the ambit of a “force majeure” event, it is possible that parties may be able to rely on Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.

印度《合同法》第五十六条规定有合同落空原则，根据该原则，如在合同订立后，因合同双方无法控制的情势变化，导致合同事实上不可履行或法律上不可履行，则合同无效。所谓“不可履行”并非字面上的“不可能履行”，而是实际上不可能履行。法院将考虑情势的变更是否从根本上影响了合同的履行。

Philippine Law 菲律宾法

Yes, it could potentially fall under the principle of rebus sic stantibus under Article 1267 of the Civil Code, which provides that “[w]hen the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom in whole or in part.”

是的。此情况有可能适用《民法典》第1267条规定的情势变更原则。根据该条款，如合同的履行难度明显超出当事各方的合理预期，债务人有权全部或部分的免除因此导致的责任。

Laos Law 老挝法

Article 29 of <The Law on Contract and Tort> states when difficulties arise in the performance of contract despite of having made all best efforts a contracting party cannot perform its contractual obligations in regular manner, such party shall inform the other party the causes of the difficulties in appropriate time prior to the expiration of the period of performance. Notification of such difficulties shall not release the debtor from its responsibilities. After such difficulties have ended, the debtor shall perform its contractual obligations”.

根据老挝人民民主共和国《合同及侵权法》第二十九条，“如已尽最大努力但履行合同仍存在困难，致合同一方仍不能按通常方式履行合同义务，该合同一方应在履行期限届满前的适当时间内将发生困难的原因通知另一方。对于阻碍履约的困难的通知并不解除债务人的合同义务。在该困难结束后，债务人有义务继续履行其合同义务。”

Article 30 of <The Law on Contract and Tort> states a contracting party that has perform part of its contractual obligations may suspend its obligation performance by notifying immediately the other contracting party if it is deemed that the notified party is falling in such situation which may causes negative effects to oneself, such as:-Being sued or requested for a bankruptcy;-Lack of reliability in business operation that may causes the incapacity to perform the contract.”

根据老挝人民民主共和国《合同及侵权法》第三十条，“如其认为合同另一方存在下述情形，且对其造成不利影响，已部分履行合同义务的当事人，可立即通知合同另一方当事人以中止履行自身的合同义务：

- 被诉或申请破产

- 在经营活动中缺乏可靠性，致使无法履行该合同。”

The contracting party that has suspended its obligation performance shall be liable to the other contracting party for the damage resulting from such suspension in the absence of the above-mentioned situation.

在无上述情况发生的情况下，中止履行义务的合同当事人应对该中止履行行为对另一方合同当事人造成的损失承担赔偿责任。

If the notified contracting party to the contract performance suspension may certify or secure an appropriate capacity to fulfil its obligations under the contract, the contracting party that has suspended the performance of obligations shall continue to perform them. In case of failure to certify or to secure such appropriate capacity, the contracting party that has suspended the contract performance may terminate the contract.

如果合同履行中止的被通知方可以证明或担保其具有履行合同义务的适当能力，则中止履行义务的合同一方应继续履行其义务。如果未能证明或未提供适当担保的，中止合同履行的一方可以终止合同。

The notified contracting party on the contract performance suspension shall pay compensation for the obligations fulfilled by the contracting party.

如合同终止，被通知一方需对通知方已履行的合同义务承担赔偿责任。

The suspension of the contract performance can apply to contracts of any kind, except for the unilateral contract”.

除单务合同外，中止履行合同的约定适用于所有类型的合同。

Hence, if a party to the contract is actually affected by the epidemic, such party may notify the other contracting party of the difficulties and seek to suspend its obligations under the contract pursuant to Article 29.

因此，如合同一方受到新冠疫情的影响，可通知另一方合同当事人此困难事项，并依据第二十九条中止履行其义务。

Conversely, the other party may seek to suspend its obligations to the affected party if the other party is of the view that the affected party is incapable of performing its obligations due to the epidemic under Article 30.

相反，如合同一方当事人认为受疫情影响一方无法履行其合同义务，同样会依据第三十条，中止履行其向受影响一方的合同义务。

编译:立杰亚洲（Rajah & Tann Asia）、星瀚律师事务所（RICC & CO.）

感谢以下同行的回应：