疫情中建设工程和设备建造企业的法律应对策略——从中国法和英国法视角

Legal Measures in Response to the Impact of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Epidemic for Construction Engineering and Equipment Building Enterprises——From the Perspectives of Both Chinese and English Law

本文作者：胡键 周凯国 吴明远 

HU Jian, ZHOU Kaiguo, WU Mingyuan

前言 Preface
近期，新型冠状病毒感染肺炎疫情（以下简称“疫情”或“‘新冠’疫情”）爆发，形成了一场全国性、波及域外的公共卫生事件，并给建设工程和设备建造（含船舶、高铁车辆、起重机械和大型建筑设备）等行业企业，带来了一系列境内外政策和法律影响。Recently, a novel coronovirus epidemic (hereinafter referred to as the “Epidemic” or the “Novel Coronavirus Epidemic”) has emerged, developing anationwide public health event in China that spreads across the border, and hasbrought about a series of domestic and overseas policies and legal impacts onconstruction engineering and equipment building enterprises (the latter’sproducts referring to ships, high-speed rolling stock, lifting machinery andlarge construction equipment) and others.由于“新冠”疫情来势汹汹，国务院办公厅已于2020年1月27日发布通知延长春节假期；随后，各地人民政府出于疫情防控的需要，陆续发布了地方性文件，除必要行业外，要求企业进一步推迟复工时间。同时，随着世界卫生组织于2020年1月30日宣布将疫情列为国际关注的突发公共卫生事件（PHEIC），世界多个国家和地区（如美国、澳大利亚、中国香港）宣布采取出入境管控措施。Regarding the menacing situation of the Epidemic, the General Office of the State Council has issued a notice on 27 January 2020 to extend the Spring Festival Holiday to 2 February 2020 and subsequently, the local governments have followed lead in the interest of epidemic prevention and control, to require enterprises further postpone the resumption of work, except those essential industries. Meanwhile, responding to that on 30 January 2020 the World Health Organization classified the outbreak as a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), many countries and regions (such as the United States, Australia, and Hong Kong SAR) have introduced border control measures.“新冠”疫情及伴随而来的政府行为无疑对国内相关企业的生产经营产生重大影响，且一定程度上会使企业承担的境内外建设工程、设备建造项目和/或其他工程项目的项目工期产生延误。本文拟分析“新冠”疫情的法律性质和可能导致的法律后果，并为企业应当如何应对本次疫情提供参考。The Epidemic and the accompanying government actions will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the production and operation of relevant domestic enterprises, and will to some extent delay the construction period of domestic and overseas construction engineering, equipment building and/or other engineering projects. This Article intends to analyze the legal nature and possible legal consequences of the Epidemic, and to suggest legal measures in response to the impact of the Epidemic for the enterprises’reference.

1

“新冠”疫情的法律性质和可能导致的法律后果

 Legal Nature and Possible Legal Consequences of the Novel Coronavirus Epidemic

01中国法视角下的“新冠”疫情

1.The Novel Coronavirus Epidemic from the Perspective of Chinese Law

（一）不可抗力的法律制度1.1.Force majeure principle

我国法律中存在不可抗力的法律制度。我国《合同法》第117条规定不可抗力“是指不能预见、不能避免并不能克服的客观情况。”此外，《合同法》第94条规定，因不可抗力致使不能实现合同目的，当事人可以解除合同。不可抗力制度可引发的法律后果是赋予当事人法定的免责和法定的合同解除权。因不可抗力导致当事人不能履行合同，当事人可以免除部分或全部责任。

There is force majeure principle under Chinese Law. Article 117 of the Chinese Contract Law (hereinafter as the “Contract Law”) provides that force majeure “refers to objective situations that are unpredictable, unavoidable and insurmountable.” Furthermore, Article 94 of the Contract Law provides that the parties may terminate the contract if the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved on account of force majeure. The legal consequences that can be caused by the force majeure clause are the statutory exemption and statutory right to terminate the contract. If the parties cannot perform the contract for force majeure, they may be exempted from part or all of their liability.

（二）“新冠”疫情可能但不必然构成不可抗力

1.2.The Epidemic may but may not necessarily constitute force majeure

根据《合同法》第117条的规定，不可抗力的构成需要满足三个条件，即“新冠”疫情需要具有不可预见性、不可避免性、不可克服性。本次疫情所引发的情形较为复杂，从法律分析的角度来看，本次疫情（病毒）本身以及疫情所引发的政府行为（延期复工、交通管制等政府行为）两者均有可能构成不可抗力事件。以下从不可抗力的三个条件对本次疫情进行分析。

As stipulated in Article 117 of the Contract Law, the constitution of force majeure must pass three tests, namely, the Epidemic should be unpredictable, unavoidable and insurmountable. However, the current situation accompanying the Epidemic is more complicated. From legal perspective, both the Epidemic(the novel coronavirus) itself and the government actions (government actions such as delayed resumption of work and traffic control) caused by the Epidemic may constitute force majeure. We will analyze the Epidemic according to the three tests/conditions of force majeure below.

首先，从目前的情况来看，本次疫情的爆发具有突发性，是专业医学工作者都无法预见的客观情况，且政府机关实施的企业延期复工、交通管制等行政行为也具有突发性和临时性，在疫情爆发前企业难以合理预见。

First of all, considering the current situation, the epidemic outbreak is an abrupt and objective event that even professional medical professionals cannot predicate, and the consequential administrative actions taken by the government authorities to postpone the resumption of work and to control traffic are also sudden and temporarily announced. It is therefore difficult for the enterprises to reasonably foresee the Epidemic before its outbreak.

其次，在疫情爆发后，全国大多数地区启动重大突发公共卫生事件一级响应。根据《传染病防治法》，国家亦把此次疫情纳入乙类病毒，采取甲类措施进行防控，在个别地区实施了交通管制，普遍要求企业延期复工。根据相关法律、法规的规定，企业有义务遵守相关政策措施。

Secondly, with its outbreak, most regions in China have initiated first-level response measures for major public health emergency. According to the Chinese Infectious Diseases Prevention and Control Law, the authorities have also categorized the Epidemic into a Type-B virus and adopted Class A measures for prevention and control, including imposing traffic control in individual regions and requiring the majority of the enterprises to postpone work resumption.According to relevant laws and regulations, the enterprises are obliged to comply with relevant policies and measures.

最后，本次疫情是否具有不可克服性应当根据企业的实际情况进行个案分析。对于行业内主体领域的人员密集型的企业，需要组织大量人力、采购大量物资以进行生产作业，对于该类企业，疫情所带来的负面影响要更为严重。同时，不同地区的不同企业面对不同的项目可能遭受的这些负面影响均不一致。一些企业可能因疫情影响，无法按时组织员工返回项目所在地或进入工作现场；一些企业可能虽受疫情影响，但影响不大可按时开工，仅是原材料成本小幅上涨的情况下，疫情并不能属于“难以克服”。

Thirdly, whether or not the Epidemic is insurmountable should be analyzed according to the actual conditions of the enterprises on a “case by case” basis. For enterprises in the industries which are personnel-intensive, it requires the input of a large amount of manpower and procurement of large amounts of material for production operations. For such enterprises, the negative impact of the epidemic outbreak is usually more severe. Noteworthily,different companies in different regions may suffer various negative impacts on various projects. For example, certain enterprises may not succeed in summoning employees to return to the project site or enter the work site on time in the shadow of the Epidemic; while some other enterprises may though be affected by the Epidemic, if the negative impact is merely limited to capacity to startwork on time and a slight increase in the cost of raw materials, the Epidemic does not definitely constitute force majeure.

综合以上三点，在中国法下，需要根据企业所面临的因疫情导致的具体负面影响在个案中判断本次疫情是否构成不可抗力，以及企业在特定情形下能否援引不可抗力作为免责、甚至解除合同的抗辩。

In view of the above, under Chinese law, we need to consider the specific negative impact of the epidemic outbreak that the enterprises face when examining whether or not the impact constitutes force majeure on their own merits; and to consider whether or not the enterprises can resort to force majeure for remedy to exempt liability or even terminate the contract incertain circumstances.

（三）适用不可抗力条款免除责任的注意事项

1.3.Precautions when applying force majeure clauses to exempt liability

如前所述，如本次疫情构成不可抗力，企业应当根据合同的约定和相关法律的规定，履行相应的通知、减损义务。

As mentioned above, if the epidemic outbreak constitutes force majeure, the enterprises should perform the corresponding notification and mitigation obligations in accordance with the contract and relevant laws and regulations.

根据《合同法》第118条的规定，企业应当在疫情导致其无法正常履行合同时，及时通知合同相对方。未适当履行合理通知义务并提供证明，可能导致企业在后续索赔工期、费用损失时，无法得到法院的全额支持，甚至可能因此丧失免责的权利。同时，根据《合同法》第119条第1款的规定，在疫情导致无法正常履行合同后，企业应当采取合理的减损措施避免损失扩大，否则企业难以就扩大的损失进行索赔。

According to Article 118 of the Contract Law, the enterprises should timely notify the other contractual party when the epidemic outbreak prevents it from performing the contract normally. Otherwise, failure to properly perform the obligation of reasonable notification and provide proof may result in the enterprises failing to obtain the full support of the court in the subsequent claim for construction/building time and cost losses, and may even lose its right to be exempted. In addition, according to Article 119,paragraph 1 of the Contract Law, after the epidemic outbreak leading to failure of  contract performance, the enterprises should take reasonable mitigating measures to avoid the loss from expansion;otherwise, they will find it difficult making claims  for the enlarged loss.

（四）适用情势变更原则的可能性

1.4.Applicability of the principle of clausula rebus sic stantibus(change of circumstances)

除不可抗力制度外，企业可以尝试依据情势变更原则达到变更、解除合同的目的。根据相关司法解释的规定和相关理论，情势变更原则要求突发事件的严重程度相较于不可抗力较低，但是，不可抗力属于法定的免责或解除事由，无需司法机关介入当事人即可行使权利。相反，情势变更原则的适用需当事人向法院请求，由法院根据公平原则和案件情况，判定是否予以变更或解除合同，并不当然免除当事人责任。

In addition to the force majeure principle, the enterprises could attempt to achieve the purpose of changing and terminating the contract according to the principle of change of circumstance. According to relevant judicial interpretations and views, the principle of change of circumstance requires that the severity of an emergency be lower than force majeure. However, force majeure is a statutory exemption or rescission, and the right can be exercised without the intervention of judicial authorities. On the contrary, the application of the principle of change of circumstance requires the parties to submit to the court;the court determines whether or not to change or terminate the contract based on the principle of fairness and the merits of the disputes, which will not necessarily exempt the parties’ liability.

在难以援引不可抗力进行免责时，企业可以考虑依靠情势变更原则，要求法院根据公平原则，予以补偿损失或变更、解除合同。然而，情势变更原则存在法律依据不确定，需要司法机关强制介入和法院裁判尺度更加严格审慎的劣势，因此，总体来看，如存在不可抗力的适用情形，我们建议企业优先运用不可抗力制度进行救济。

Therefore, when it is difficult for the enterprises to invoke force majeure for exemption from liability, they may consider relying on the principle of change of circumstance and request the court to exercise discretion based on the principle of fairness to compensate loss, or change or terminate the contract. However, adversely since the change of circumstance principle is of uncertainty in legal provision, and it requires the compulsory intervention of the judicial authorities that tend to take a stricter and more cautious position when determining its application, generally, we would suggest that the enterprises give priority to the force majeure clause as a remedy if applicable.

02英国法视角下的“新冠”疫情2.From the Perspective of English Law

鉴于在国际工程、设备建造行业中，当事人往往以国际通用的合同模板为基础制定协议（如国际工程中的FIDIC合同、船舶建造中的BIMCO-NEWBUILDCON），并且此类协议通常约定英国法作为协议的适用法律。因此，我们相信有必要从英国法的角度对本次疫情带来的影响进行初步分析。

Whereas in the international construction engineering and equipment building industries, parties often formulate agreements based on internationally-used contract templates (such as FIDIC contracts in international engineering and BIMCO-NEWBUILDCON contracts in ship building),and such agreements normally include English law as the applicable law. As such, we believe that it is also necessary to make preliminary analysis on the impact of the epidemic outbreak from the perspective of English law.

（一）英国法未对不可抗力做出系统性的规定，不可抗力能否作为免责事由取决于合同约定

2.1.There is no systemic provision on force majeure under English law; whether or not force majeure is applicable as an exemption depends on the terms and conditions of contract

与我国法律下不可抗力的详尽制度不同，英国法没有对不可抗力这一概念做出明确的规定，也没有规定明确的不可抗力的法律制度。当事人能否援引不可抗力作为免责事由，主要取决于双方是否预先在合同中对不可抗力做出了约定，以及发生的客观情况是否属于合同不可抗力条款约定的范围。此外，由于英国法并未对不可抗力的法律效果做出全面规定（仅散见部分案例），故不可抗力的法律效果取决于合同中相关条款的具体约定。

Dissimilar to the detailed force majeure provisions under Chinese law, English law does not define the concept of force majeure, nor does it provide a clear force majeure legal framework. Whether or not a party can invoke force majeure as a cause of exemption mainly depends on whether or not the parties have agreed on force majeure in the contract in advance, and whether or not the objective circumstances occurred are within the scope of the clause. Moreover, since English law does not have systematic provisions for the legal effect of force majeure (which however are scattered in some precedents),it depends on the specific wording of the relevant terms and conditions of the contract.

（二）英国法下适用不可抗力的注意事项

2.2.Precautions when applying force majeure clauses under English law

我们注意到，英国法院于2019年作出的一个判例对不可抗力的适用做出了指引。法院判决认为，当事人援引不可抗力条款进行免责的前提是，非因不可抗力事件的发生，当事人不会迟延履行或构成其他违约。

We note that a decision made by the UK Court of Appeal in 2019, to some extent, provides guidance on the application of force majeure. The Court ruled that the premise that the parties invoked the force majeure clause for exemption was that the parties would not delay performance or constitute other breaches of contract but for the occurrence of force majeure events.

另外，企业应当留意合同不可抗力条款或相关条款的具体约定。通常，国际工程合同、装备建造（如造船）合同含有不可抗力条款或类似条款。该等合同中的不可抗力条款往往会约定明确的通知方式、程序和期限。

Additionally, the enterprises should pay attention to the specific provisions of the force majeure clause or other relevant clauses of the contract. Customarily, international construction engineering and equipment building (such as ship building) contracts include force majeure clauses orsimilar clauses. The clauses in such contracts often stipulate clear notification methods, procedures and deadlines.

最后，通常合同中的不可抗力条款会要求双方当事人在遭受不可抗力事件时采取合理的努力（reasonable endeavours）以避免或降低损失。当合同不可抗力条款没有明确要求双方负有采取减损措施的义务时，如上述2019年的英国判例也作出了一定的指示。

Finally, the force majeure clauses in the contract usually requires the parties to take reasonable endeavours/steps to avoid or reduce losses in the event of a force majeure occasion. For the circumstance where the force majeure clauses in the contract do not explicitly require the parties to take mitigating measures, certain guidance is as indicated in the above-mentioned 2019 English precedent.

（三）当合同中没有不可抗力条款时，可考虑适用英国法下的合同受阻原则解除合同

2.3.When there is no force majeure clauses in the contract,consideration can be given to the applicability of the frustration doctrine under English law to terminate the contract

一般来说，英国法下的合同受阻原则（doctrine of frustration）是适用在合同订立后，非因合同双方的过错产生了足以导致合同任意一方无法履行合同根本义务的事件，该事件使得合同一方无法履行合同根本义务（impossible to fulfill a fundamental obligation of the contract）；或者合同根本义务与双方订约时的合意发生了根本变化。

In general, the doctrine of frustration under English law applies to the fact that after the conclusion of the contract, the fault of both parties to the contract has caused an event sufficient to cause either party to the contract impossible to fulfill a fundamental obligation of the contract; or the fundamental obligation of the contract and the agreement between the two parties have changed fundamentally.

然而，英国法对合同受阻原则的适用设置了较高的标准。英国法院对上述“合同根本义务”的解释较严格，且要求当事人遭受影响的程度较高，并承担较重的举证责任。英国法院明确认为，仅仅因为当事人履约的难度加剧、时间延长或费用增加，并不能必然导致合同受阻原则的适用，即当事人难以免除履约义务。

Nevertheless, English law sets higher standards for the application of the doctrine of frustration. The English court has a comparatively strict interpretation of the "fundamental obligations of the contract", and requires the parties to be affected to a greater degree and to bear a greater burden of proof. The English court clearly held that merely the parties' difficulty in performing, the time or the cost increased, cannot necessarily lead to the application of the doctrine of frustration, namely, it is difficult for the parties to be exempted from their performance obligations.

在 Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC一案中，英国法院最终判定，虽然合同履行变得困难（履行时间延长）、合同下的利润降低（费用增加），但这些事由并不导致合同受阻，合同受阻原则不能适用。另外，在Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht一案中，英国法院也采纳了前述判决的观点，认为在特殊事件没有导致合同发生根本变化的情况下，仅仅因为履约困难或费用增加并不能导致合同受阻原则的适用，当事人也不得据此解除合同。

In the case of Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC, the English court finally ruled that although contract performance became difficult (time extended) and profits under the contract decreased (increased costs), these reasons did not cause the contract to be frustrated and the doctrine of frustration could not be applicable. Furthermore, in the case of Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V / O Sovfracht, the English court also adopted the view of the foregoing judgment and held that if the event does not cause a fundamental change in the contract,simply the difficulty in performing the contract or the increase in costs does not lead to the application of the doctrine of contract frustration, and the parties may not terminate the contract accordingly.

鉴于合同受阻原则的适用较为严格，在合同中存在不可抗力条款的情况下，我们建议企业应当优先考虑适用不可抗力条款进行抗辩。同时，企业可以根据疫情形势的变化，审慎考虑适用合同受阻原则进行救济的可能性。

In view of the strict application of the frustration, if there are force majeure clauses in the contract, it would be advisable that the enterprises give priority to application of the clauses for defense. Meanwhile,the parties may prudently consider the applicability of the contract frustration doctrine as a remedy, according to the ever-changing epidemic status.

2

企业如何应对本次疫情？

Suggested Measures in Response to the Impact of the Epidemic03本次疫情的应对策略3.Suggested Measures

结合以上分析，着重不可抗力原则，我们为企业提出以下几点疫情的应对策略，以供参考（针对适用英国法的合同，在条款约定不明确的情况下，也可视情况参考中国法的规定，来尽可能合理谨慎地享受和履行合同的权利和义务。但是应该注意到，境外合同方拒绝承认的风险仍然存在。）：

Based on the above analysis, in particular the force majeure principle, we would suggest the following measures in response to the impact of epidemic outbreak for the enterprises’ reference (for contracts with English law applicable, if their terms and conditions are ambiguous, the enterprises may as appropriate refer to the provisions under Chinese law to make their best endeavors to reasonably and cautiously enjoy their rights and fulfill their obligations thereunder. However, it is worthwhile to note that the risk never disappears of rejection from other contracting parties.):

（一）审阅合同文本，确定是否存在不可抗力条款（也要注意对方的权利义务）

3.1.Reviewing contract text to detect whether or not there are force majeure clauses (and meanwhile heeding the rights and obligations of the other contractual party under the contract) 

首先，我们建议企业立即着手评估可能因本次疫情导致履约受阻的项目，尽快审阅受影响项目的合同文本，以确定合同是否存在不可抗力条款或其他类似条款。这一点对于国际工程、船舶建造等通常适用英国法的项目尤其重要。

Firstly, we would suggest that the enterprises promptly evaluate projects that may have been hindered by the epidemic outbreak, and review the contract text of the affected project as soon as possible to determine whether or not there are force majeure clauses or other similar clauses in the contract. This is particularly important for projects that are ordinarily subject to English law, such as international construction engineering and ship building projects.

其次，除留意合同中的不可抗力条款外，企业也应当注意合同中对方在出现不可抗力事件时可能享有的权利或应承担的义务。出现不可抗力事件时，一些合同条款可能会赋予一定救济措施。

Secondly, in addition to paying attention to the force majeure clauses in the contract, the enterprises should also be mindful of the rights or obligations that the other contractual party may have as a result of a force majeure event. For that event, some contract terms and conditions may confer on the parties certain remedy.

（二）尽快向合同相对方发出不可抗力通知

3.2.Sending notice of force majeure to the other contractual party at the first opportunity

根据我国《合同法》第118条，企业在因不可抗力事件导致无法履行合同义务时，应当及时通知合同相对方和/或其他相关方。因本次疫情企业无法正常履约的，企业可以及时将无法正常履约的原因、依据和证明材料以书面方式通知合同相对方和/或其他相关方，并留意通知的方式、程序、期限。

According to Article 118 of the Contract Law, when an enterprise is unable to perform its contractual obligations on account of a force majeure event, it should promptly notify the other contractual party and /or other relevant parties. If the enterprises are unable to perform the contract normally as a result of the epidemic outbreak, they may timely notify in writing the other contractual party and/or other relevant parties of the reason of the failure to perform the contract in time, and provide legal grounds and supporting documents. When doing so, they should also pay attention to the method, procedure and time limit of the notice.

（三）请求政府机关或具有资质的机构开具不可抗力证明，并对不可抗力事件造成的实际影响和损失开具证明

Requesting a government agency or a qualified institution to issuea force majeure certificate, and provide proof of the actual impact and losscaused by the force majeure event

根据《合同法》第118条的规定，企业应当在合理期限内提供证明。我们理解企业应当尽量准备并提供两方面的证明：1. 关于不可抗力事件和/或相关政府机关的行政措施的证明；2. 关于不可抗力事件造成企业的实际影响和损失的证明。

According to Article 118 of the Contract Law, the parties should provide proof within a reasonable period. We understand that the parties should attempt to prepare and provide two kinds of proof: (1) certificates about force majeure events and/or administrative measures of relevant government agencies and (2) proof about the actual impact and loss of the enterprise caused by force majeure events.

对于上述第一点的证明，企业特别是针对涉外项目，可以申请中国国际贸易促进委员会（“贸促会”）等机构出具与不可抗力相关的事实性证明。截止本文撰稿之日，我们了解到贸促会已于2月2日向浙江某企业出具了首份新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情不可抗力事实性证明书；对于上述第二点的证明，企业可以对疫情造成的影响和损失进行内部评估并形成报告，同时，也建议企业邀请第三方评估机构对相关情况进行评估并出具报告。

Regarding the first kind of document, the enterprises and inparticular those involving projects outside China may apply to institutionssuch as the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (“CCPIT”) toissue factual proof relating to force majeure. As of the date of this Article,we understand that the CCPIT has issued the first factual certificate of forcemajeure in respect of the novel coronavirus epidemic to an enterprise inZhejiang Province on 2 February 2020. Regarding the second kind of document,the enterprises may conduct internal assessment and report on the impact andloss caused by the epidemic outbreak. At the same time, we would also suggestthat they could invite a third-party evaluator to assess the relevant situationand issue a report.

（四）做好证据留存工作，以备应对潜在的诉讼或仲裁程序

3.4.Retaining evidence to respond to any potential court or arbitration proceedings

本文写作时，我们注意到国内部分企业的不可抗力通知和证明，遭遇到境外合同方的拒绝。所以，我们建议疫情期间，企业应当注意保留与疫情相关、与履约相关的证据，为不可抗力的事实、企业所遭受影响的情况作出证明，尝试应对潜在的诉讼或仲裁程序。

In writing this article, we come to know that certain domesticenterprises’ legal grounds and proof of force majeure have been subject to rejectionfrom overseas contracting parties. Therefore, during the epidemic period, theenterprises should pay attention to keeping evidence related to the epidemicoutbreak and contract performance for the purpose of proving the force majeurefacts, the circumstances under which the enterprises have been affected, which couldassist the enterprises in responding to potential court or arbitrationproceedings.

（五）妥善履行减损义务

3.5.Properly fulfilling mitigating obligation

根据《合同法》第119条的规定，企业负有减损义务。如在船舶建造项目下，因疫情影响导致企业缺少充足劳务、物资以推进关键路径项目的建造，企业可以转而选择启动需要较少人力、物力的非关键路径项目的建造，以降低损失。

According to Article 119 of the Contract Law, the parties have mitigating obligation. For example, in ship building projects, if the enterprises lack sufficient labor and materials to promote the construction ofcritical path projects on account of the epidemic outbreak, they can alternatively choose to start the construction of non-critical path projects that require less manpower and material resources to reduce losses.

（六）积极与合同相对方和其他相关方进行沟通，尝试友好协商、避免争议

3.6.Actively communicating with the other contractual party and/or relevant parties to attempt to solve problems through amicable negotiation and avoid dispute 

我们建议企业在按约发出不可抗力通知的基础上，保持与合同相对方的积极沟通，尝试开启无损权益的协商、谈判，以期双方能就项目的延期、费用承担等事宜达成一致，避免争议的扩大。

We would suggest that the enterprises keep active communication with the other contractual party as well as issuing force majeure notices in accordance with the contract and attempt to start “without prejudice”discussions and negotiations with them, in the hope that they can reach agreement on period extension, cost commitments and so on , to halt the expansion of disputes.04结语4.Conclusion

在“新冠”疫情爆发的特殊时期，企业应该尽快评估相关项目履约能力，对可能受到疫情影响而存在履约障碍的项目，建议应当尽快根据合同约定和法律规定作出不可抗力通知，并积极采取减损措施，以避免损失的扩大。同时，我们相信上述中国法下的通常做法，也可补足英国法的履约场景，尽管有遭拒绝的风险，在合同约定不明时，可帮助企业尽量达到相关的“合理注意”和“谨慎履约”标准。

In the special period of the Epidemic breakout, it would be advisable for the enterprises to evaluate the compliance of their projects at the first opportunity. For projects that may be affected by the Epidemic and have compliance obstacles, it would be advisable for the enterprises to make force majeure notice as soon as possible according to the contract, laws and regulations, and actively take mitigating measures to halt the expansion of loss. In the meantime, we believe that the above-mentioned provisions under Chinese law could constitute good practice and also complement the performance scenarios with English law applicable. When the terms and conditions of a contract are ambiguous, the steps under Chinese law may benefit the enterprises,notwithstanding rejection risk, at the utmost, to perform their relevant "due care" and "due diligence" duties.

*本文英国法部分解读，是对于有关态势的参考性分析，并不代表英国执业律师的意见，或构成任何相类似效果的法律见解。*The introduction and analysis on English law of this article, merely provide a reference point for the contemporary issue, and in any event does not constitute formal opinion and advice of qualified legal professionals in the England and Wales, and/or any legal understanding and interpretation to similar effect.

---

注释：

[1]《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

Article 26 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Several Issues concerning the Application of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (II)

[2]英国法部分内容，参杨良宜：《国际商务游戏规则：英国合约法》

Please refer to the parts relating to English law in International Business Game Rules: UK Contract Law, authored by Philip Yang

[3]Classic Maritime Inc v Limbungan Makmur SDN BHD [2018] EWHC 2389

[4]Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696

[5]Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht (The Eugenia) [1964] 2 QB 226

[6]“China LNG Force Majeure Rejected as Virus Chaos Sparks Dispute”（“疫情触发争议，中国LNG不可抗力遭拒”）, Bloomberg (彭博):https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-07/china-lng-force-majeure-rejected-as-virus-chaos-sparks-dispute

作者介绍
胡键 

合伙人

020-8573 2528

[e-mail]

胡键律师1998年毕业于大连海事大学获法学学士学位，2003年毕业于英国诺丁汉大学获国际商法硕士学位。胡键律师在处理公司涉外仲裁案件、海洋工程、一般工程、海商海事、并购、重组、不良资产处置、外商投资、劳动法等法律事务方面颇具经验；在其他商事法律服务方面也具有丰富的阅历，如银团贷款和一般公司法律服务。胡键律师入选全国律师协会涉外律师“领军人才”，中国司法部 “全国千名涉外律师人才库”，广东省律师协会涉外律师“领军人才” ，并且是英国皇家特许仲裁员协会会员。胡键律师是Legal 500评选的“新一代合伙人”。

周凯国

合伙人

010-5809 1407

[e-mail]

周凯国律师2005年毕业于对外经济贸易大学获法学学士学位，2011年毕业于伦敦政治经济学院（LSE）获法律与会计硕士学位，并且在芝加哥大学学习。周凯国律师可以代表客户参与国际国内疑难、复杂的商事诉讼和仲裁案件，制订契合监管和商业实践的企业合规方案，涉及公司股权、银行金融、海事海商、工程与装备等领域；在不良资产处置领域，也有跨境和多元化的法律从业经验。

吴明远

律师助理

吴明远本科毕业于大连海事大学获得法律学士学位，后于美国杜兰大学获得法律硕士学位。其业务领域主要在合同、海商、公司法律事务，以及相关和其他国内诉讼与国际仲裁，善于同境外律师沟通并协同处理案件，曾协助境内外客户处理伦敦、香港等地的国际仲裁。

声明 DISCLAIMER

本文观点仅供参考，不可视为竞天公诚律师事务所及其律师对有关问题出具的正式法律意见。如您有任何法律问题或需要法律意见，请与本所联系。

This article is for your reference only and not to be deemed as formal legal advice given by Jingtian & Gongcheng or its lawyers. Please contact us directly for formal legal advice or further discussion about the relevant issues.