A subcontractor in Reno made me rethink my force majeure clause

I was dead set on keeping my old force majeure language, the kind that only covers natural disasters. Last week a concrete sub named Dale pointed out that a supplier strike in 2023 would have shut us down for 3 weeks, and my clause wouldn't have touched it. He had a contract where a labor shortage counted as an event, and that got me looking at how vague my wording was. Now I'm adding a catch-all for supply chain disruptions, but I'm worried about being too broad. Has anyone found a middle ground that holds up in court?

2 comments

2 Comments

the_betty4d ago

Did you check if Dale's clause listed "labor shortage" as its own thing, or did it just say "supply chain" and the lawyer read it that way? I once had a sub try to claim a paint color backorder as a force majeure event, which was a whole other kind of creative.

blake_kelly194d ago

Actually, I think you're overcomplicating it. Most of these clauses just say "supply chain" and the lawyer reads it broad enough to cover labor, that's how they get away with it. It's not creative, it's just how the contract was written.