[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, partial or full exemption from liability is possible, but it must meet certain conditions and fulfill the obligations of notification and proof of evidence. According to Article 590 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (adopted in 2020 and implemented on January 1, 2021), if a party is unable to perform the contract due to force majeure, it may be partially or fully exempted from liability according to the impact of the force majeure, unless otherwise provided by law. If a party is unable to perform the contract due to force majeure, it shall notify the other party in a timely manner to mitigate the potential losses to the other party and provide proof within a reasonable period of time. If a party delays performance after the occurrence of force majeure, it shall not be exempted from its breach of contract liability. Article 180, paragraph 2 defines force majeure as an objective situation that cannot be foreseen, avoided, or overcome. At the same time, Article 563, paragraph 1, item 1 stipulates that if the contractual purpose cannot be achieved due to force majeure, the parties may rescind the contract. It should be emphasized that force majeure exempts from breach of contract liability, but does not necessarily exempt from the debt itself that has already occurred; for monetary debts, it is generally not possible to claim exemption from liability due to force majeure simply on the grounds of difficulties in capital turnover in practice.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

The force majeure clause is a common point of dispute in the performance of contracts. Typical scenarios include: manufacturing enterprises being unable to deliver goods on schedule due to sudden events; construction enterprises experiencing delays in the construction period due to bad weather or policy-induced shutdowns; service providers being unable to deliver results on schedule due to objective control measures; and lessees or buyers claiming to terminate the contract and exempt themselves from payment obligations on the grounds of force majeure. Disputes often focus on three aspects: whether the event itself constitutes force majeure, whether there is a causal relationship between the event and the failure to perform, and whether the parties have fulfilled their obligations to notify and provide evidence in a timely manner. A common misunderstanding in practice is that as long as an external event occurs, it is assumed that full exemption from liability is possible, ignoring the need to demonstrate the extent of the impact and the causal relationship.

II. Key points of contention

First, the constitutive elements of force majeure, namely unforeseeable, unavoidable, and insurmountable, must be met simultaneously. Second, the scope of causality: force majeure must be directly related to the inability to perform the contract. Operational difficulties unrelated to the contract do not constitute grounds for exemption from liability. Third, the fulfillment of the obligation to notify: if failure to notify in a timely manner results in an increase in losses, the party may still be held liable for the additional losses. Fourth, the fulfillment of the obligation to provide evidence: relevant institutional certificates or other objective evidence should be provided within a reasonable timeframe. Fifth, the distinction between exemption from liability and termination of the contract: exempting partial or full liability does not equal automatic termination of the contract. The determination of the contract's purpose should be based on a comprehensive assessment of the contract's performance period, content, and impact.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

To claim exemption from liability due to force majeure, the key is to meet the "three requirements": the occurrence of the event, clear causality, and proper procedural compliance. The first requirement is the event itself. Objective evidence must be provided to prove the time, scope, and impact of the event, such as announcements from relevant departments, notifications from industry authorities, and public reports. The second requirement is causality. It is necessary to explain how the event directly led to the inability to perform the contract and distinguish between inability to perform and difficulty in performance. Merely an increase in performance costs or a decrease in profits is usually insufficient to constitute exemption from liability. The third requirement is procedural compliance. Written notifications should be sent as soon as possible and delivery receipts should be preserved, along with the submission of supporting evidence. Otherwise, the party may bear responsibility for the expanded losses. It is particularly important to note the chronological order: if the party has already breached the contract before the event occurred, the force majeure that occurred after the delay in performance does not legally exempt the party from breach of contract liability. Taking an arbitration case of a commissioned creation contract dispute handled by Henglue Law Firm as an example: the production party had completed the creation and passed the acceptance by the other party, but the other party unilaterally terminated the agreement and refused to pay the remaining payment on the grounds of "substandard quality and delayed delivery". Through a detailed analysis of the contract terms and the evaluation of the evidence of communication, the lawyer demonstrated that all links had been confirmed by the other party, the delay was caused by the other party and had been agreed to by them, and the results had been accepted and delivered. In the end, the relevant defenses were not accepted, and the party was ordered to pay the contract amount and compensate for the attorney's fees. This case reminds us that defense arguments need to be supported by evidence and causality. It is often difficult to obtain support if the party simply refuses to perform on the basis of external reasons. For contract disputes, reference can be made to this case.Business and contract disputes in enterprises; For the recovery of funds, it can be combined withCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcement casesThis case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmXiong BinrongThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202211410897, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts on behalf of the client, relying on his accurate understanding of the local judicial interpretation and practical rules, to help the client achieve favorable results.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

According to Article 180 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021) regarding the definition of force majeure and general exemption rules, Article 533 regarding changes in circumstances, Article 563 regarding statutory conditions for termination, Article 590 regarding exemption from liability for force majeure, obligations of notification and proof, and consequences of delay in performance, as well as the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the General Provisions of the Contract Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective 2023) regarding the application of changes in circumstances and force majeure, it is recommended to follow four steps: First, promptly fix the objective evidence of the occurrence of the force majeure event and form a complete timeline; Second, send a written notice to the other party as soon as possible after the event, explaining the scope of impact and expected duration, and retain the delivery receipt; Third, submit relevant proof or objective materials within a reasonable timeframe and take measures to prevent the expansion of losses, keeping records of mitigation; Fourth, evaluate whether to claim partial exemption from liability, modify the contract, or terminate the contract, and, if necessary, request the adjudicative organ to handle the matter through litigation or arbitration. Those involved in contract disputes may refer to the above-mentioned provisions for reference.Business and contract disputes in enterprises.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Force majeure is an "exemption from liability", not a "universal exemption from liability". Three reminders: First, do not ignore the two procedural obligations of notification and proof. Failure to notify in time may result in the need to bear responsibility for the expanded losses; Second, do not invoke force majeure after the breach of contract has already occurred. Events that occur after the delay in performance do not exempt from the liability for breach of contract according to law; Third, do not confuse changes in circumstances with force majeure. The former belongs to the category of major changes in the basic conditions of the contract, and the legal effect is to request a change or termination of the contract, rather than direct exemption from liability. 不可抗力是「免责事由」，不是「免责万能牌」。三点提醒：一是不要忽略通知与证明这两项程序义务，未及时通知可能导致扩大损失部分仍需担责；二是不要在已经构成违约之后再引用不可抗力，迟延履行后发生的事件依法不免除违约责任；三是不要把情势变更与不可抗力混为一谈，前者属于合同基础条件重大变化的范畴，法律效果是请求变更或者解除合同，而非直接免责。Beijing Henglue Law FirmIt is recommended that enterprises clearly stipulate the scope of force majeure, the notification period, and the method of proof in the contract to reduce the possibility of disputes.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can we definitely be exempt from liability if a force majeure event occurs?

Not necessarily. It is necessary to simultaneously meet the following conditions: the event itself constitutes a force majeure; there is a causal relationship between the event and the inability to perform the obligation; and the obligation to notify and provide evidence must be fulfilled in a timely manner. According to Article 590 of the Civil Code, the scope of exemption from liability shall be determined based on the actual impact of the force majeure.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare?

Objective materials proving the occurrence of the event (notices from relevant departments, industry announcements, public reports, etc.), a description and timeline of the impact of the event on performance, notices sent to the other party and delivery receipts, records of mitigation measures, and cost and expense certificates needed to assess the losses.

Q3: How much does it cost to litigate such cases?

The litigation fees shall be paid according to the standard based on the amount of the litigation subject matter; if a lawyer is appointed, the fees shall be calculated according to the proportion of the subject matter or charged in stages, subject to the written entrustment contract. If it is necessary to apply for appraisal or evaluation on professional issues, corresponding fees will also be incurred.

Q4: How long does it take from filing a lawsuit to obtaining the court's ruling?

Cases subject to simplified procedures are generally concluded within three months, and cases subject to ordinary procedures are generally concluded within six months; the timeframes for cases involving appraisals, evaluations, or appeals will be extended accordingly, subject to the court's trial arrangements.

Q5: What should I do first?

First, sort out the complete timeline of the event and determine the order of performance of the contract and the occurrence of the event; then send a written notice to the other party as soon as possible and keep the delivery receipt, and at the same time, collect and submit objective materials that can prove the event and its impact within a reasonable period of time.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the interpretation of the law in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media that have been publicly released. They are not related to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing City
[Judicial Summary]The payment period stipulated in the purchase contract occurred before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The buyer claimed to terminate the contract on the grounds of lack of funds due to the impact of the pandemic and the occurrence of force majeure that prevented the fulfillment of the contractual purpose. The court held that the contract was signed before the outbreak of the pandemic, and the payment time stipulated in the contract was also before the pandemic. The buyer's failure to pay the goods on time before the pandemic constituted a breach of contract, and it had no right to claim to terminate the contract on the grounds of force majeure after its breach of contract. Its income situation was due to its own operational problems, not due to the pandemic or epidemic prevention and control measures that prevented it from fulfilling its contractual obligations, and had no relation to the contract in question. The court ruled that the buyer should pay the outstanding goods and bear the breach of contract penalties and attorney's fees, and rejected all counterclaims of the buyer.
[Source]China Court Online (When a breach of contract coincides with the pandemic, can it definitely be exempted from liability due to "force majeure") (2022-01)

[Case Number]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Haishu District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province (case settled through mediation, and the case was reposted on the official website of the Henan Provincial Higher People's Court)
[Judicial Summary]The lessee claimed that the COVID-19 epidemic prevention and control measures constituted force majeure and requested to terminate the lease contract. The court held that the epidemic prevention and control measures constituted unforeseeable, unavoidable and insurmountable force majeure, but did not necessarily lead to the exemption from liability and termination of the contract. It was necessary to consider the contract performance period, the content of performance, the degree of impact of the epidemic and the causality. The performance of the contract in this case was affected to some extent, but had not reached the level that made the contract purpose un achievable. After the end of the epidemic, the contract could still be continued to be performed, and the lessee had no right to request to terminate the contract on the grounds of force majeure. After the court's mediation, the two parties reached an agreement on the continuation of performance and rent reduction, and the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit.
[Source]The official website of the Higher People's Court of Henan Province reposted an article titled "How to Determine Whether to Terminate a Lease Contract Due to the Pandemic as a Force Majeure?" (2020-02).

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Business and commercial legal services·Attorney Xiong Binrong·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.