The present reflections are an attempt to answer the question to what extent events such as a war, a pandemic or an extraordinary price rise constitute circumstances justifying a contract modification. One can hardly deny that these have an extraordinary character, both from the point of view of the grounds for modifying the contract by virtue of the rebus sic stantibus clause and considering the history of this clause. But the occurrence of the titular events is not in itself a circumstance justifying a contract modification. What is left outside the scope of the article’s interest area is the question of existence of other grounds necessary for judicial modification of the contract. With respect to extraordinary events, a thesis has been formulated that it is necessary to assess every requested contract modification in terms of the influence of the war, pandemic or extraordinary change in relations on the contract. The reasons why a person enters into a contract are a matter of their individual vision of and assumptions about the future of the contract. It would be hard to expect parties to all contracts, even ones made in order to deal with identical issues, to have identical assumptions about or identical vision of not only the expected effects of the contract, but also its more or less distant future. It also seems justified for parties to attempt to modify the contract between themselves, without involving courts in resolving problems caused by extraordinary events.
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.