There are three primary defenses to performance under a contract. Importantly, these defenses do not provide a direct mechanism for obtaining price increases. Rather, these defenses (if successful) excuse the invoking party from the obligation to perform under a contract. Nevertheless, these defenses can be used as leverage during negotiations.

Force Majeure

Force majeure is a defense to performance that is created by contract. As a result, each scenario must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis depending on the language of the applicable force majeure provision. Nevertheless, the basic structure generally remains the same: (a) a listed event occurs; (b) the event was not within the reasonable control of the party invoking force majeure; and (c) the event prevented performance.

Commercial impracticability (Goods)

For goods, commercial impracticability is codified under UCC § 2-615 (which governs the sale of goods and has been adopted in some form by almost every state). UCC § 2-615 excuses performance when: (a) delay in delivery or non-delivery was the result of the occurrence of a contingency, of which non-occurrence was a basic assumption of the contract; and (b) the party invoking commercial impracticability provided seasonable notice. Common law (applied to non-goods, e.g., services) has a similar concept known as the doctrine of impossibility or impracticability that has a higher bar to clear. Under the UCC and common law, the burden is quite high. Unprofitability or even serious economic loss is typically insufficient to prove impracticability, absent other factors.

Frustration of Purpose

Under common law, performance under a contract may be excused when there is a material change in circumstances that is so fundamental and essential to the contract that the parties would never have entered into the transaction if they had known such change would occur. To establish frustration of purpose, a party must prove: (a) the event or combination of events was unforeseeable at the time the contract was entered into; (b) the circumstances have created a fundamental and essential change, and (c) the parties would not have entered into the agreement under the current terms had they known the circumstance(s) would occur.

In court, most likely not. These doctrines are meant to apply to circumstances that prevent performance. Also, courts typically view cost increases as foreseeable risks. Official comment of Section 2-615 on commercial impracticability under UCC Article 2, which governs the sale of goods in most states, says:

“Increased cost alone does not excuse performance unless the rise in cost is due to some unforeseen contingency which alters the essential nature of the performance. Neither is a rise or a collapse in the market in itself a justification, for that is exactly the type of business risk which business contracts made at fixed prices are intended to cover. But a severe shortage of raw materials or of supplies due to a contingency such as war, embargo, local crop failure, unforeseen shutdown of major sources of supply or the like, which either causes a marked increase in cost or altogether prevents the seller from securing supplies necessary to his performance, is within the contemplation of this section. (See Ford & Sons, Ltd., v. Henry Leetham & Sons, Ltd., 21 Com.Cas. 55 (1915, K.B.D.).)” (emphasis added).

That said, during COVID and Trump Tariffs 1.0, we did see companies use force majeure/commercial impracticability doctrines as a way to bring the other party to the negotiating table, to share costs.

No, force majeure typically does not allow for price increases. Force majeure only applies in circumstances where performance is prevented by specified events. Force majeure is an excuse for performance, not a justification to pass along the burden of cost increases. Nevertheless, the assertion of force majeure can be used as leverage in negotiations.

Yes, a tariff is a tax.

Yes, a surcharge is a price increase. If you have a fixed-price contract, applying a surcharge is a breach of the agreement.

That said, during COVID and Trump Tariffs 1.0, we saw many companies do it anyway. Customers typically paid the surcharges under protest. We expected a big wave of litigation by those customers afterward, but we never saw it, suggesting either the disputes were resolved commercially or the customers just ate the surcharges and moved on.

To determine if you can pass on the cost, the analysis needs to be conducted on a contract-by-contract basis. 

The customer has five primary options:

1. Accept the price increase:

An unequivocal acceptance of the price increase is rare but the best outcome from the seller’s perspective.

2. Accept the price increase under protest (reservation of rights):

The customer will agree to make payments under protest and with a reservation of rights. This allows the customer to seek to recover the excess amount paid at a later date. Ideally, the parties continue to conduct business and the customer never seeks recovery prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations (typically six years, depending on the governing law).

3. Reject the price increase:

The customer will reject the price increase. Note that customers may initially reject the price increase but agree to pay after further discussion. In the event a customer stands firm on rejecting the price increase, the supplier can then decide whether it wants to take more aggressive action (e.g., threaten to stop shipping) after carefully weighing the potential damages against the benefits.

4. Seek a declaratory judgment and/or injunction:

The customer can seek a declaratory judgment and/or injunction requiring the seller to ship/perform at the current price.

5. Terminate the contract:

The customer may terminate part or all of the contract, depending on contractual terms