[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the epidemic situation and its prevention and control measures can, in principle, constitute force majeure, but they are not a "universal excuse". The directness of the impact, the degree of impact, and the proportion of the period of impact on the performance of the contract should be determined on a case-by-case basis. If the phased impact is not sufficient to make the contractual purpose fail, the party can only claim partial exemption from liability or negotiate amendments. Unilateral termination of the contract may still constitute a breach of contract. The overall standard of the adjudication is "how much impact, how much exemption", without a one-size-fits-all approach.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

A typical scenario of disputes related to the pandemic: how to calculate rent and employee salaries during the closure period, delivery defaults due to supply chain disruptions, refunds for canceled service contracts (wedding banquets, travel, training), and one party of a contractual management agreement withdrawing due to the pandemic. The intuitive perception of enterprises and individuals is that "the pandemic = force majeure = exemption from liability," but the actual standards for adjudication are much more refined than this.

II. Key points of contention

First, the correspondence between impacts and obligations. Pandemic measures directly lead to exemptions from liability for those unable to fulfill their obligations; exemptions are not granted for those who merely increase costs and reduce profits. "More expensive to fulfill obligations" does not equal "unable to fulfill obligations". Second, the refinement of proportions. The extent of exemptions is calculated based on the impact period and the scope of obligations, with cases ranging from full exemptions to partial exemptions to no exemptions at all. Third, the threshold for termination. Only when the contractual purpose cannot be achieved at all due to the pandemic can statutory termination be applied; for short-term impacts or where the other party has already made concessions to mitigate losses, unilateral termination may be deemed a breach of contract.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The adjudication standard for the force majeure of the epidemic situation provides clear guidelines. On one end, there is "recognition": In a labor wage case, a private hospital closed its inpatient department due to the epidemic, and the nurses' labor wages were reduced accordingly. The court ruled that the outbreak of the epidemic was unforeseeable, and the closure of the inpatient department constituted an insurmountable difficulty, thus qualifying as force majeure. The court determined to exempt the hospital from 45% of its liability during the epidemic period and ordered it to pay the remaining labor wages—note that the key term here is "discretionary exemption of 45%". The exemption is based on the proportion of the impact, rather than an all-or-nothing approach. On the other end, there is "partial recognition": In a taxi contract case, the driver unilaterally requested to return the car and terminate the contract on the grounds that the epidemic constituted force majeure. The court held that although the epidemic was a force majeure, its impact was only temporary compared to the four-year contract period, and it could not be determined that the contractual purpose was fundamentally impossible to achieve. Moreover, the taxi company had already significantly reduced the contractual fees. The driver's unilateral return of the car constituted a breach of contract. Together, these two cases provide a user manual for the application of the "epidemic card": First, the establishment of the qualification of force majeure does not equal the establishment of exemption from liability. The impact must be "direct, significant, and corresponding"; Second, the concept of proportionality permeates the entire process—exempting three months of liability for a three-month impact, rather than nullifying the entire contract period; Third, the court will take into account the other party's mitigation and concessions (reduced fees, deferral) when balancing the interests. For claimants, the action checklist includes: fixing evidence of the epidemic impact (lockdown announcements, business suspension notices, logistics disruption records); quantifying the impact period and its correlation with obligations; keeping written records of negotiations (price reductions, deferral); and assessing whether the "contractual purpose is fundamentally impossible to achieve" before claiming termination. Before suing, conducting case law searches is the most cost-effective preparatory step. Beijing has abundant adjudication materials for contracts involving the epidemic situation, and past judgments on the impact proportion of similar contracts provide direct reference value. Conducting case law searches before suing is the most cost-effective preparatory step.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to influence the filing process: consolidate and fix the official and self-certified materials related to lockdowns and business suspensions, as well as supply chain disruptions; The second step is to calculate the proportion: quantify claims according to the period and scope of obligations, without making demands for full exemption; The third step is to document the negotiation process: formalize all concessions such as rent reductions and payment deferrals, as well as counter-concessions; The fourth step is to exercise caution in terminating contracts: prioritize assessing whether the purpose of the contract has been achieved, and clarify the breach of contract risks involved in unilateral termination. Main legal basis: Articles 180, 563, and 590 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective in 2021); the Supreme Court's series of guidance opinions on properly adjudicating civil cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic; specific applications shall be subject to currently effective regulations and judicial interpretations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The correct way to play the "epidemic card" is to "act proportionally": the qualitative establishment is just the admission ticket, and the duration of the impact, the corresponding obligations, and the other party's mitigation jointly determine the nature of the exemption from liability. Those who want to terminate the contract should first calculate the threshold of "fundamental failure", and if it does not meet the requirement, they should return to the table of negotiation and partial exemption from liability. Those involved in contract disputes related to the epidemic can resolve them through legal means.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor services involving overall solutions, such as lease concessions and contract disputes, you can refer to the special topic on changes in circumstances in this batch. For those involving the design of force majeure clauses, you can also make reference to it.Specialised legal servicesFor those interested, you can pay attention to the sections related to labor employment and pandemic arrangementsLabor disputes and work-related injury compensationFor reference, the section regarding the settlement of debts and enforcement of claims after the pandemic can be consultedCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcement cases板块。

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can the rent during the pandemic be waived in full?

Reduce the rent according to the proportion of the impact: For the period when the business is completely unable to operate, the rent reduction space is large; for the period when the business can operate normally, the rent will be reduced on a case-by-case basis, referring to the relevant policies and judgments.

Q2: Can I still terminate the contract even if the other party reduces the rent?

The contract can be terminated by mutual agreement; however, unilateral termination of the contract depends on whether the purpose of the contract has been fundamentally thwarted. In cases where the other party has already made concessions, the claim for termination of the contract is usually difficult to gain support.

Q3: Are there any differences between the contracts signed before the pandemic and those signed during the pandemic?

Yes. In the context of the pandemic, signing a contract is considered as having anticipated the relevant risks, and the scope for invoking the defense of force majeure has been significantly narrowed.

Q4: Is the delivery delay entirely due to the pandemic?

Cut according to cause and effect: exempt from liability during the period directly affected by the lockdown of logistics, and bear the responsibility for the part caused by insufficient self-stocking and funding problems.

Q5: If the wedding banquet is cancelled due to the pandemic, will the deposit be refunded?

If the event cannot be held due to prevention and control measures, the contract may be terminated and the organizer may claim the return of the deposit. The actual losses that have occurred shall be deducted on a pro rata basis.

The above content is based on the compilation of judicial practices in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Henglue Law Firm for specific situations.

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference, 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 outlets that have been publicly released. They are unrelated to the cases handled by our firm and are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules. They do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Pingjiang County, Hunan Province
[Judicial Summary]Due to the closure of the inpatient department of the private hospital caused by the pandemic, the nurses' labor wages for nursing work were correspondingly reduced. The court ruled that the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic was unforeseeable, and the closure of the inpatient department constituted an insurmountable difficulty, which constituted force majeure. The court determined to exempt the hospital from 45% of its liability during the pandemic and ordered it to pay the remaining labor wages.
[Source]Hunan Court Network (The salary was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the court applied the force majeure principle to make a judgment) (2020-10)

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Changshu City, Jiangsu Province
[Judicial Summary]The taxi driver unilaterally requested to return the car and terminate the contract on the grounds that the epidemic constituted force majeure. The court held that although the epidemic was a force majeure, its impact was only temporary and short-lived compared to the four-year contract period, and it could not be determined that the purpose of the contract could not be achieved at all. Moreover, the lessor had significantly reduced the contract fee. The driver's unilateral return of the car constituted a breach of contract, and the court ruled that he should bear corresponding breach of contract liability.
[Source]Changshu City People's Court (Is the termination of a contract necessarily exempt from liability due to the COVID-19 pandemic being a force majeure?) (2020-10)

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public 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. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.