最近Chatgpt 咁HIT，就試下問依個一路好想知的問題，之前問過唔同的人：Covid-19 可以拿到期？
有D話係force majeure event, 有人話中標前無covid 先有得上，又有人話covid有但政府的政策就無，樣樣都聽落似層層。
咁BOT 點答呢？ 我一連問左幾條問題，依個係BOT 的答案：-
Q： Is Covid-19 a Force Majeure Event?
A: COVID-19 and the resulting effects could potentially become the basis of an EOT (Extension of Time) claim, depending on the circumstances.Some things to consider:
What specific impacts has COVID-19 had on your project? e.g. delays in getting supplies/materials, workforce shortages, government restrictions impacting site access or productivity etc.Can you show clear evidence of these impacts and the resulting delays to the project? e.g. records of supply delays, correspondence around staff shortages or restrictions etc.Does your contract allow EOT claims due to events outside of your control? Force majeure or similar clauses may cover unforeseen events like COVID-19, but the specifics of your contract will determine if time/cost relief is possibleHave you followed the proper notice/claim procedures in your contract for submitting an EOT? There are often conditions around notifying of delays/impacts and formally submitting a claim.Is COVID-19 still ongoing or likely to continue to impact the project? The effects may be temporary or longer term, which would affect the length of EOT being sought.
So in summary, COVID-19 could be grounds for an EOT claim if you can show demonstrable impacts and are contractually entitled to submit such a claim. But the strength of any potential claim will depend on the specific circumstances and contract terms. You would need to assess the impacts to your project and ensure you follow the proper procedures in your contract for submitting a time-related claim.
Q: Do you think local government’s governance policy for COVID-19 is a force majeure event? It is not a natural occurrence, but rather a decision made by humans.
A: You make a good point. Government policies/decisions in response to COVID-19 are not a “natural" or neutral event, but rather a deliberate human decision. Some things to consider:
The wording of the force majeure clause – it may be more likely to cover truly unforeseen/unpreventable events like natural disasters, rather than policy decisions (even if in response to an unforeseen event like COVID-19)Whether the government action was reasonably foreseeable or preventable – if a government’s actions in response to a pandemic were reasonably predictable, it may be harder to argue it constitutes force majeureWhether the actions were targeted/necessary – if there are arguments that less restrictive actions could have been taken, it may be more difficult to claim that stricter actions were force majeureMitigation – parties to a contract could be expected to have contingency plans for foreseeable events, including government responses, so force majeure may depend on showing adequate mitigation steps were impossible
So in general, while government policies in response to COVID-19 could impact contracts, it may be challenging to claim they automatically constitute a force majeure event, depending on the specific circumstances and contract terms. The key would be showing the actions were unforeseeable and unavoidable, and that mitigation was not possible. But there are valid arguments on both sides, and it would ultimately be up to the courts to interpret based on the details of a particular contract and situation.
Q: What are the key factors that determine whether a government policy is considered a force majeure event?
factors that could determine if a government policy constitutes a force majeure event include:
Whether the policy was unforeseen/unavoidable. If a policy was a predictable/expected response, it may be harder to argue it was force majeure. Unpredictable or sudden policy changes are more likely to potentially qualify.
Whether mitigation was possible. If a party could have reasonably mitigated or planned for the effects of a policy, it weakens a force majeure argument. Showing mitigation was truly impossible could strengthen the argument.
Whether the policy was disproportionate/unnecessary. If there are claims a government took overly strict or unreasonable actions, it may be more difficult to say those strict actions were force majeure events. Necessary and targeted policies are more likely to be considered reasonable responses.
The specific wording of the force majeure clause. The clause may be more or less likely to cover government actions depending on how it’s written. Very broad clauses or those specifically mentioning government actions may be more likely to apply than narrower clauses.
The jurisdiction and applicable laws. Different countries/states may view force majeure and government actions differently. So the law of the relevant jurisdiction would be a factor in determining if a policy constituted force majeure.
Overall, it would depend on the specific details of the policy, contract, and situation. Government actions are not automatically force majeure, but may be depending on the circumstances and contract terms. It would ultimately be up to a court to determine based on the facts if a policy qualified as force majeure.
Here are a few relevant case examples regarding government actions and force majeure:
In Taft v. SCI Alabama Funeral Services, an appeals court ruled that a state’s embargo on a product did not constitute force majeure because it was foreseeable. The court said “foreseeable supervening governmental actions, without more, do not excuse performance under a force majeure clause."In Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light, a court found that government regulations that made a contract more costly to perform did not constitute force majeure because the company could have mitigated or planned for such changes. Mere increased cost or difficulty was not enough.In Seadrill Management v. North Atlantic, regulations that delayed drilling operations were ruled force majeure because they were sudden, unforeseeable, and made performance physically impossible, not just more difficult or costly. The court considered the fact that the company took measures to comply but could not have planned for the specific regulations issued.
So case law does suggest that foreseeability, possibility of mitigation, and whether performance was truly impossible are key factors. Mere cost increases or difficulties are typically not enough, but sudden, unforeseeable changes that make compliance physically impossible could potentially be force majeure, depending on the circumstances and contract terms. Ultimately, it comes down to the specific details and jurisdiction.
睇完一輪，會發現AI 都幾小心，好多字眼都會用"May"，"could"之類。雖然我對AI 答案的準確性會有少少保留，即係唔會100% 信曬佢講的野，但佢提出的point 同 case 都係方向去繼續研究同搵答案。
根據佢上面講的point，都可以總結government policy/law 都有機會可以跌落Force Majeure 入面，所以作為MC-QS，有理無理執齊料上左先算:)
分享此文：
列印(在新視窗中開啟)
列印
分享到 WhatsApp(在新視窗中開啟)
分享到 Telegram(在新視窗中開啟)
Telegram
喜歡 正在載入...