The coronavirus and related state measures are clearly out of the control of companies and not something they could reasonably have foreseen. The absence of a force majeure clause may indeed reinforce the argument that the pandemic risk was not awarded in a contract. Therefore, we expect that the ability of companies to successfully implement these defensive measures will depend above all on the extent to which performance would actually result in extreme and inappropriate difficulties, costs, injuries or losses. This is a factual investigation that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Companies must make reasonable efforts to overcome possible obstacles to performance and continue to fulfil those elements of their obligations that are not impossible or unenforceable. Other possible defenses against the execution of an agreement are the doctrines of „impossibility“ or „inevitability“. As a general rule, the non-performance of a party is not excused when the event preventing performance was expected at the time of the conclusion of the contract or represented a foreseeable risk. And even if the event was unforeseeable, the courts must nevertheless determine whether the non-entry of the event was a fundamental hypothesis on which the contract was concluded. As a general rule, simple changes in market conditions or financial incapacity are not unforeseen events. For example, oklahoma courts have held that it is impossible or unenforceable: for an employer to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement requiring it to use the claimant as the operator of the backup machine when the company has ceased to use the machine and no operator or backup operator is required; for an owner, to restore a hotel demolished by the tornado, where the hotel could not be reasonably rebuilt or where the defendant was unable to obtain the necessary equipment due to a state of war; and for a railway that continues to ship grain, where the railway ceased to function after the construction of a dam that flooded 19 miles of track and would have cost $25 million in today`s dollars to move it. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a series of laws that govern certain types of business relationships. The UZK has been taken over in one way or another by every state in the country, but it is generally a general and uniform legislation. Article 2 of the CSA deals exclusively with the sale of goods.
The term „goods“ is broad and generally encompasses all things that are mobile at the time of contract identification. As a result, most sales and sales contracts entered into by manufacturers generally fall into this category, as they relate to the manufacture and shipment of products to customers. One of the unique features of section 2 of the CSA is the role of the „fillings“ of the PEA. These are legal provisions that the parties have not potentially discussed or agreed to in their contract, but are prescribed by law, regardless of the parties` inability to address such contingencies. In other words, even if a contract remains silent under certain critical conditions, the parties will be subject to specific provisions of the PEC and will determine whether or not they intend to do so. These provisions therefore serve as a series or series of rules of delay that the courts will use to determine contractual liability for matters such as the performance of the contract. Given that this e-letter assumes that the parties have not included a specific provision on „force majeure“ in their underlying contract, the provisions of the ESDP relating to the reduction of gaps may be the determining factor in determining whether or not a party`s non-compliance as a result of events such as the COVID-19 outbreak is legally excused in whole or in part. If any of the above indications have been found to be applicable, the obligations of the party asserting the defence may be fulfilled.  However, if impossible or unenforceable benefits were temporarily permanent, these lessons would generally only excuse the benefit as long as the disabling condition persisted.
. . .