4 ms·

In contract law, there's a concept called force majeure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure), which comes i

In contract law, there's a concept called force majeure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure), which comes into play when the normal circumstances under which the contract was signed are changed by a sudden, unpredictable event -- the proverbial "act of God." Most contracts have a force majeure clause, that either releases the parties from their contractual obligations in such an event, or substantially relaxes the penalties for failing to meet those obligations. The idea is, nobody could have seen these circumstances coming, so it's unfair to hold either party to obligations they suddenly find themselves unable to meet. (Example. I contract with 5,000 people to give them admission to a concert, and then the night before the show an asteroid falls out of the sky onto the stadium I had contracted to hold that concert in. Force majeure means I'm not obligated to put on another show at my own expense despite losing all the money I'd already invested in the first one. It would be unfair to hold me to that promise, since it was invalidated by circumstances no reasonable person could have foreseen.) I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not privy to the precise language in the contracts between universities and students for residential housing. But I feel pretty confident that they have a force majeure clause in them. And seeing as how Massachusetts declared a state of emergency over the coronavirus today (https://www.boston25news.com/news/mass-gov-declares-state-emergency-over-covid-19/VNFNNJ477REVPNDZBP7CMZMPOE/ https://www.boston25news.com/news/mass-gov-declares-state-em...), it seems like universities in that commonwealth would have a reasonably strong legal argument for exercising them.

chickenpotpie 7y ago
IANAL either, but force majeure refers to being unable to fulfill a contract. The dorms are still standing and legally habitable so that doesn't really seem to apply here.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  They may be "legally habitable" under the normal building codes, but those codes don't take into account the circumstances of a pandemic disease. MIT has contracted with these students to provide them with housing. Part of their normal obligation under those contracts would be to provide them with housing that offers a reasonably healthy environment. MIT will have by now heard from a lot of Highly Credentialed Experts that, in the circumstances of a widely circulating coronavirus, normal dorm conditions don't provide that reasonably healthy environment anymore -- they instead put students at elevated levels of risk. So if you're MIT, what do you do? You could say "hey, those dorms up to code!" and keep on housing people in them, sure. But if you do, you open yourself up to lawsuits from outraged parents if those students end up getting sick at greater rates than the overall population. And, when it inevitably comes out in the discovery process of those lawsuits that you were directly warned against doing that by the aforementioned Highly Credentialed Experts -- well, at that point you are boned, my friend, contract or no contract. Or, alternately, you can point to the declaration of a state of emergency, declare that the dorms aren't fit for habitation under the current circumstances (which, you will take pains to remind everyone, were beyond your ability to predict), and kick the kids out. Yes, it'll suck for the kids, but not as much as drowning in their own fluids would. And if anyone comes after you with a lawsuit when the dust clears, you'll be on a much sturdier position from which to defend your actions.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "Yes, it'll suck for the kids, but not as much as drowning in their own fluids would." I keep reading that the casualty rate for young people is miniscule. It's the nursing homes that are being decimated, no?
    - cactus2093 7y ago
      Hospitalization rate for young people is small but not insignificant, and as Italy is now experiencing if the number of cases overwhelm the healthcare system then many of those who need to be hospitalized will die.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      The kids going to visit their grand parents on weekends is a risk as well
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Yeah, so the first course of action would be...don't visit them this weekend. Or the nursing home.
Keverw 7y ago
Interesting, also I thought some states don't consider dorms to be residential. So maybe that adds more flexibility for schools. Like I don't think you can use your dorm address on a state ID or driver license?
majos 7y ago
The Economist even wrote about force majeure a couple of weeks ago [1]. Gist was that Chinese firms may use it to void contracts, and Chinese courts may uphold these choices to the frustration of Western companies. This probably also applies to firms in general now, but the article is specifically about its use in China. [1] https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/22/chinese-firms-use-obscure-legal-tactics-to-stem-virus-losses https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/22/chinese-firms-...
- bsder 7y ago
  Um, sucks to be them? The fact that doing business in China has no useful legal backstop is quite well known. It's very hard to be sympathetic to people doing business with or outsourcing to China when that is KNOWN to be basically cashing out now and foisting the consequences/risk off onto your successors. Western firms are running with no inventory and no contingency. The Taiwan quake several years ago showed that Western business managers suffered no consequences for that so why should they care?
wyldfire 7y ago
> reasonably strong legal argument for exercising them. I know terribly little about law. But from what I've seen, tenants have a great deal of rights as to their status quo living conditions. The property is not hazardous to inhabit, clearly their non-student neighbors couldn't be evicted for the same reason. Seems like a court would favor the tenant here unless the university provided evidence from the government that favored their eviction.

chickenpotpie 7y ago

IANAL either, but force majeure refers to being unable to fulfill a contract. The dorms are still standing and legally habitable so that doesn't really seem to apply here.

smacktoward 7y ago
They may be "legally habitable" under the normal building codes, but those codes don't take into account the circumstances of a pandemic disease. MIT has contracted with these students to provide them with housing. Part of their normal obligation under those contracts would be to provide them with housing that offers a reasonably healthy environment. MIT will have by now heard from a lot of Highly Credentialed Experts that, in the circumstances of a widely circulating coronavirus, normal dorm conditions don't provide that reasonably healthy environment anymore -- they instead put students at elevated levels of risk. So if you're MIT, what do you do? You could say "hey, those dorms up to code!" and keep on housing people in them, sure. But if you do, you open yourself up to lawsuits from outraged parents if those students end up getting sick at greater rates than the overall population. And, when it inevitably comes out in the discovery process of those lawsuits that you were directly warned against doing that by the aforementioned Highly Credentialed Experts -- well, at that point you are boned, my friend, contract or no contract. Or, alternately, you can point to the declaration of a state of emergency, declare that the dorms aren't fit for habitation under the current circumstances (which, you will take pains to remind everyone, were beyond your ability to predict), and kick the kids out. Yes, it'll suck for the kids, but not as much as drowning in their own fluids would. And if anyone comes after you with a lawsuit when the dust clears, you'll be on a much sturdier position from which to defend your actions.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "Yes, it'll suck for the kids, but not as much as drowning in their own fluids would." I keep reading that the casualty rate for young people is miniscule. It's the nursing homes that are being decimated, no?
  - cactus2093 7y ago
    Hospitalization rate for young people is small but not insignificant, and as Italy is now experiencing if the number of cases overwhelm the healthcare system then many of those who need to be hospitalized will die.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    The kids going to visit their grand parents on weekends is a risk as well
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Yeah, so the first course of action would be...don't visit them this weekend. Or the nursing home.

Keverw 7y ago

Interesting, also I thought some states don't consider dorms to be residential. So maybe that adds more flexibility for schools. Like I don't think you can use your dorm address on a state ID or driver license?

majos 7y ago

The Economist even wrote about force majeure a couple of weeks ago [1]. Gist was that Chinese firms may use it to void contracts, and Chinese courts may uphold these choices to the frustration of Western companies. This probably also applies to firms in general now, but the article is specifically about its use in China. [1] https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/22/chinese-firms-use-obscure-legal-tactics-to-stem-virus-losses https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/22/chinese-firms-...

bsder 7y ago
Um, sucks to be them? The fact that doing business in China has no useful legal backstop is quite well known. It's very hard to be sympathetic to people doing business with or outsourcing to China when that is KNOWN to be basically cashing out now and foisting the consequences/risk off onto your successors. Western firms are running with no inventory and no contingency. The Taiwan quake several years ago showed that Western business managers suffered no consequences for that so why should they care?

wyldfire 7y ago

> reasonably strong legal argument for exercising them. I know terribly little about law. But from what I've seen, tenants have a great deal of rights as to their status quo living conditions. The property is not hazardous to inhabit, clearly their non-student neighbors couldn't be evicted for the same reason. Seems like a court would favor the tenant here unless the university provided evidence from the government that favored their eviction.