新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情（“疫情”）爆发后，笔者在春节假期内连续接到多起法律咨询，主要内容为：合同义务履行受到疫情影响的情况下，当事人可否援引不可抗力要求免责？

After the outbreak of the New Coronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic(“Epidemic”), we received several legal consultations during the Spring Festival holidays: in the event that the performance of contract is affected by the Epidemic, can the contracting party be relieved of liability in reliance on force majeure?

鉴于该等问题具有一定共性，我们特将法律意见整理为短文一篇，谨供参考。

Given of the generality of the questions, we hereby summarize our legal opnions in this article for reference.

 

一、          何为“不可抗力”

What is Force Majeure

我国关于 “不可抗力”的法律规定，主要见于《民法总则》、《民法通则》、《合同法》：

Legal provisions for “force majeure” are mainly provided in General Provisions of the Civil Law, General Principles of Civil Law, and Contract Law:

归纳可知：

To conclude:

1.   从不可抗力的构成要件来看，应同时满足：① 主观上不能预见；② 客观上不能避免、不能克服；

From the perspective of constitutive elements, a force majeure event shall be ①unforeseeable subjectively, and ② unavoidable and insurmountable objectively; 

2.   从不可抗力的发生时间来看，应在当事人出现迟延履行的情形之前；

From the perspective occurring time, a force majeure event shall happen before late performance of contract by the affected party;

3.   从不可抗力的法律效力来看，属法定免责事由，不能约定排除，即使合同无约定仍可依法主张；

From the perspective of legal effect, force majeure is statutory circumstance under which liabilities can be exempted and such exemption cannot be excluded by agreement. A party affected by force majeure can be relieved of liabilities incurred thereby even if the contract is silent on this;

4.   从不可抗力的法律后果来看，根据受不可抗力影响的程度不同，受影响方既可能全部免责，也可能仅部分免责，法律另有规定的除外[1]。

From the perspective of legal consequence, the party affected by the force majeure can be relieved of all or part of the liabilities depending on the influence of the force majeure, unless the law provides otherwise.[1]

 

二、          本次疫情是否构成不可抗力

Is This Epidemic Outbreak a Force Majeure?

笔者认为：本次疫情在个案中是否构成不可抗力，需结合个案情况，逐一分析其是否具备不可抗力的主客观构成要件，不能一概而论。而“非典”相关判例及《最高人民法院关于在防治传染性非典型肺炎期间依法做好人民法院相关审判、执行工作的通知》[2]（已废止）可作参考。

We maintain that it shall be decided on a case-by-case basis whether the Epidemic is a force majerure, after taking into consideration each specific case and analyzing both the subjective and objective elements of force majeure. The judicial precedents relating to SARS and Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Doing Good Job of Trial and Enforcement by the People’s Court During SARS[2] (Repealed) can be used as reference.

根据相关法律规定及“非典”相关判例体现的裁判精神，笔者归纳本次疫情是否构成不可抗力的判断标准如下：

In accordance with the applicable laws and regulations, and the spirit in the judicial precedents relating to SARS, we conclude the following criteria when deciding if the the Epidemic is a force majeure:

    需进一步说明的是：

It shall be further illustrated that:

1. 不宜认定不可抗力的情形：

Circumstances that should not be deemed as force majeure:   

a.      本次疫情的出现，未对个案中合同义务的履行造成实质影响及合同目的落空；

The occurrence of the Epidemic has not materially affected the performance of the contractual obligations and the purpose of the contract is not frustrated;

b.     合同订立于疫情发生之后，或合同在疫情发生之前已处于迟延履行状态。

The contract is concluded after the Epidemic, or the performance of the contract has been delayed before the Epidemic.

2.  认定不可抗力≠全部免责

Force majeure ≠ Exemptions of all liabilities

即便本次疫情在个案中构成不可抗力，其法律后果也非部分当事人理解的“只要构成不可抗力，就一概解除合同、全部免责”。

Even if the Epidemic constitutes force majeure in a specific case, the legal consequence is not what understood by some parties - “As long as there is a force majeure, all the contracts will be terminated and all liabilities will be relieved.”

实际上，根据相关法律规定及裁判案例，不可抗力可能产生的法律后果包括：合同的变更或解除，延期履行、部分履行与全部不履行。不同的法律后果，主要取决于不可抗力对个案合同履行所产生的不同影响程度，包括：合同全部不能履行、合同部分不能履行或合同迟延履行。

In fact, according to the relevant legal regulations and judicial precedents, the possible legal consequences of force majeure include modification or termination of the contract, postponement of performance, and partial or failure of performance. The legal consequences mainly depend on the different degrees of influence on performance of the contracts by force majeure, including the non-performance of the entire contract, partial non-performance of the contract, or delayed performance of the contract.

因此，当事人基于不可抗力成立而提出的要求，应当与其履行合同所受影响程度相符。例如，某当事人因疫情影响而部分不能履行合同，但要求解除合同及全部免责的，则法院将有较大可能基于促成交易、降低交易成本及诚实信用原则等考虑不予支持该等要求。

Therefore, the request made by the contracting party shall be consistent with the degree of influence on the performance of contract. For example, if a contracting party is unable to perform part of the contract due to the Epidemic, but requires that the entire contract be terminated and all liabilities be exempted, it is very likely that the court will not uphold such requirements based on considerations such as facilitating transactions, reducing transaction costs, and the principles of good faith.

3. 债务人应注意的各项义务

Obligations that the debtor should pay attention to

a.      及时通知及举证义务

Obligation of timely notification and burden of proof

根据《合同法》第一百一十八条之规定，及时通知及举证义务是援引不可抗力的债务人必须履行之法定义务。结合“非典”相关判例，法院可采信的证据包括但不限于政府命令、住院证明、诊断病例、出院小结、隔离证明等。

According to Article 118 of the Contract Law, it is the statutory obligation of the debtor who intends to rely on force majeure to fulfill the obligation of timely notification and burden of proof. With reference to the relevant precedents of SARS, the evidence admissible by the court includes, but is not limited to, government orders, hospitalization certificates, diagnosed cases, discharge summary, and quarantine certificates.

b.     避免损失扩大义务

Obligation to avoid expansion of loss

基于诚实信用原则，不可抗力事件发生时，债务人负有采取积极措施尽量减少或避免损失扩大的义务。如债务人怠于履行该等义务而致损失扩大，则债务人亦应根据其过错程度承担相应责任。

Based on the principle of good faith, when a force majeure event occurs, the debtor is obliged to take active measures to minimize or avoid the expansion of losses. If the debtor’s failure to perform aforesaid obligations results in an increase of losses, the debtor should also bear corresponding liabilities based on the extent of its fault.

 

三、          延伸思考：情势变更的选择适用

Other Thoughts: Application of Change of Circumstances

在此前关于“非典”的相关判例及法官关于免责制度的学术观点中，亦有部分意见采纳或倾向于适用《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国合同法>若干问题的解释(二)》第二十六条之规定（即“情势变更”），而非“不可抗力”[4]。

In the previous relevant precedents relating to SARS and the academic opinions of judges on the exemption of liabilities, some people adopted or tended to apply Article 26 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Application of the “Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China” (2) (i.e. change of circumstances) instead of force majeure[4].

《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国合同法>若干问题的解释(二)》

第二十六条　合同成立以后客观情况发生了当事人在订立合同时无法预见的、非不可抗力造成的不属于商业风险的重大变化，继续履行合同对于一方当事人明显不公平或者不能实现合同目的，当事人请求人民法院变更或者解除合同的，人民法院应当根据公平原则，并结合案件的实际情况确定是否变更或者解除。

Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Application of the “Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China” (2)

Article 26 Where any significant change in the objective environment has taken place after the formation of a contract which could not have been foreseen by the relevant parties at the time of entering into the contract, and does not belong to any commercial risk occasioned by any force majeure cause, rendering the continual performance of the contract manifestly unfair to the relevant party or rendering it impossible to realize the goal of the contract, the People’s Court shall confirm whether the contract shall be varied or dissolved in accordance with the principle of justice taking into account the actual circumstance, where a relevant party petitions a People’s Court to vary or dissolve the contract.

针对本次疫情的影响，法律工作者在结合个案拟定免责方案和应对策略时，特别是在个案中证据不足以证明疫情对于合同的履行产生了“不可克服”的影响之时，或可将情势变更作为一条“备选思路”。因为情势变更也属于不可预见、不能避免的情形，但在仅导致合同的履行艰难或不必要，即按照合同履行是可能的，只是会造成双方利益关系的严重失衡、对于一方当事人明显不公平之时，亦可考虑适用。

In terms of the impact of this Epidemic, legal workers may use change of circumstances as an alternative when making liability exemption plan and response strategy based on specific cases, especially when there is no evidence to prove that the Epidemic has “insurmountable” impact on the performance of the contract. As change of circumstances is also an unforeseeable and unavoidable situation, it can be applicable where it only causes the performance of contract to be difficult or unnecessary; in other words, it is possible to perform the contract, but such performance will cause a serious imbalance between the interests of the two parties and is obviously unfair to one party.

最后，限于篇幅，本文在此简要摘录不可抗力与情势变更区别，希望对读者针对个案进行不可抗力与情势变更的选择适用有所帮助[5]：

Due to space limitations, in this article we briefly summarizes the differences between force majeure and change of circumstances6, and we hope it can help the reader choose the application of force majeure or change of circumstances in specific cases[5]: