In this article
What Force Majeure Does in Saudi Contracts
Force majeure is the legal doctrine that excuses a party from contractual performance when an unforeseeable, external event makes performance genuinely impossible. In Saudi law it sits at the intersection of contract codification and centuries of Sharia jurisprudence on impossibility — and the modern Civil Transactions Law has given it more defined edges than it ever had under uncodified practice.
The doctrine is invoked far more often than it succeeds. Most claims that begin "I couldn't perform because of force majeure" fail because the claimant cannot prove all three of the doctrine's required elements. Understanding what the doctrine actually requires — and what it does not — is the difference between a defence that holds and one that collapses under cross-examination.
The Three Required Elements
A force majeure claim under Saudi law requires the affected party to establish three elements, each independently.
Unforeseeability. The event must have been unforeseeable at the time the contract was formed. An event that the parties could reasonably have anticipated — known seasonal weather patterns, predictable regulatory changes, the ordinary risks of the industry — does not qualify, even if it materialised in an unusually severe form. The standard is the reasonable contemporary observer, not perfect foresight.
Externality. The event must originate outside the affected party's control. Acts of nature, government action targeting the wider industry, war, and similar circumstances qualify. The party's own decisions, internal failures, the actions of its subcontractors or affiliated entities, and the consequences of its prior risk-taking do not. A supplier who cannot deliver because its sole production facility flooded due to inadequate drainage cannot generally invoke force majeure — the inadequate drainage was the supplier's choice.
Genuine impossibility. The event must make performance genuinely impossible, not merely harder, more expensive, or less profitable. This is where most claims fail. A construction contractor whose materials cost doubled has experienced economic hardship, not impossibility — the materials still exist and can still be obtained, just at a worse commercial position. Genuine impossibility requires that no reasonable alternative path to performance exists.
The Codified Legal Basis
The Civil Transactions Law (Royal Decree M/191 dated 29/11/1444H) addresses force majeure within its general theory of obligations. The codification preserves the substantive Sharia framework while adding procedural clarity that the prior uncodified system lacked.
Three articles are particularly important. The general impossibility provision states that an obligation is extinguished if its performance becomes impossible through a cause not attributable to the debtor. The unforeseeable-event provision addresses partial or temporary impossibility — the obligation is suspended or adjusted rather than fully extinguished. The hardship provision (discussed below) addresses cases that fall short of impossibility but produce extreme imbalance.
Saudi courts have, since the codification, begun applying these provisions with more consistency than the prior uncodified system permitted. Recent judgments have tended to set a high bar for force majeure while applying the hardship provision more readily — recognising that economic disruption can warrant contractual adjustment without crossing the impossibility threshold.
Force Majeure Versus Hardship
The distinction between force majeure (impossibility) and hardship (mashaqqah) is critical and frequently misunderstood.
Force majeure requires impossibility. The remedy is suspension or termination of the obligation. The non-performing party owes no damages for the suspended or terminated obligation.
Hardship requires extreme imbalance short of impossibility — performance is still possible but has become so onerous that strict enforcement would produce manifest injustice. The remedy is judicial adjustment of the contract terms to restore reasonable balance, not termination. The affected party continues to perform under adjusted terms.
The difference matters substantially in practice. A claim framed as force majeure may fail on the impossibility element but succeed when reframed as hardship. Sophisticated counsel typically plead both, allowing the court to choose the more applicable framework. The Civil Transactions Law's express recognition of hardship as a doctrine provides a clearer pathway for cases that the prior uncodified system might have struggled to fit into Sharia categories.
Suspension, Adjustment, Termination
When force majeure or hardship is established, three remedies are available depending on the nature and duration of the impediment.
Suspension applies when the impediment is temporary. The obligation pauses during the impediment's duration. Once the impediment ends, the obligation resumes — typically with the timeline extended by the suspension period. A contract with a delivery deadline is not breached during a force majeure event but resumes its countdown when the event ends.
Adjustment applies when the contract can continue but its terms need modification to address the changed circumstances. The court has authority to revise price, scope, schedule, or other terms to restore reasonable balance. The threshold is high — the court does not adjust contracts merely because they became unprofitable. Manifest disproportion is required.
Termination applies when the impediment is permanent or the contract cannot meaningfully continue under any reasonable adjustment. The contract ends; obligations performed before termination remain valid; obligations not yet performed are extinguished. The non-performing party owes no damages, and the performing party generally cannot recover for partial performance that has lost its value to them.
What an Effective Force Majeure Clause Should Cover
The doctrine applies even without a contractual clause — the Civil Transactions Law provisions operate by default. But a well-drafted force majeure clause adjusts the default rules in ways the parties find more predictable. Five elements deserve attention.
The defined event list should specify which events qualify (acts of nature, war, terrorist acts, government action, pandemic, etc.) without being so narrow that an unanticipated event escapes coverage. A residual "and other similar events" clause is standard.
The notice requirement sets how quickly the affected party must inform the counterparty of the event and its expected impact. Saudi courts have been increasingly strict about notice timing — late notice can defeat an otherwise valid claim.
The mitigation requirement obligates the affected party to take reasonable steps to limit the disruption. A party that does nothing to mitigate cannot claim the full benefit of the doctrine.
The duration trigger sets the point at which a temporary impediment becomes grounds for termination rather than continued suspension. Typical: 30, 60, or 90 days, depending on the contract's nature.
The allocation of pre-event costs addresses what happens to investments, deposits, or partial performance already made when the event triggers. This is where post-event disputes most often arise.
The COVID-Era Precedent
The 2020-2021 pandemic produced the largest wave of force majeure litigation in modern Saudi history. The patterns that emerged from those cases continue to shape current practice.
Saudi courts generally accepted COVID-related lockdowns and government-mandated business closures as qualifying force majeure events for contracts where performance required physical premises (retail leases, event contracts, hospitality services). Courts generally rejected force majeure claims for contracts where remote performance was viable (consulting services, ongoing supply contracts with multiple sources) but accepted hardship-based adjustments where pricing had shifted dramatically.
The COVID precedent established several enduring principles: government action with industry-wide effect qualifies more readily than market disruption; the affected party's mitigation efforts are scrutinised closely; and contracts performed in part before the event require careful allocation of pre-event costs. These principles continue to guide Saudi courts in current force majeure cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a price increase qualify as force majeure? Generally no. Price increases — even dramatic ones — are commercial risks the parties bear under their contract. The hardship doctrine may apply where the increase is so extreme that strict performance would produce manifest injustice, but the force majeure threshold of impossibility is rarely met by pricing changes alone.
Can a party invoke force majeure if it failed to insure against the risk? The failure to insure does not itself defeat a force majeure claim, but it can affect the analysis. Courts increasingly examine whether the affected party took reasonable risk-management steps including insurance, alternative sourcing, and contingency planning. A party that ignored prudent precautions has a weaker case for relief from the consequences.
Who decides whether force majeure applies — the parties or the court? Initially the parties, through their notice and response under the contractual clause. If they disagree, the court (or arbitral tribunal where the contract specifies arbitration) decides. The decision is highly fact-specific and turns on the three elements analysed against the actual circumstances.
What if the contract has no force majeure clause at all? The Civil Transactions Law provisions apply by default. A party can invoke statutory force majeure or hardship even without a contractual clause. The contractual clause, when it exists, can adjust the default rules — it does not replace them entirely, since some provisions are mandatory.
When You Need Counsel
Force majeure analysis is among the most fact-intensive areas of contract law. The same circumstances may support a successful claim for one party and fail for another based on differences in their respective positions, contracts, and conduct. Counsel becomes essential in three scenarios.
Pre-event drafting. An effective force majeure clause built before any problem arises substantially improves the affected party's position when an event occurs. Tailored clauses outperform generic templates in actual disputes.
Event response. When an event has occurred and force majeure may apply, the affected party's first 14 days of response — notice content, mitigation actions, document preservation, communication tone — heavily influence the eventual outcome.
Dispute resolution. Once a force majeure claim is contested, the analysis becomes litigation-grade: evidence development, expert testimony, procedural strategy. Generalist commercial counsel often handle these cases poorly; specialist contract-dispute counsel produce materially better outcomes.
For commercial-dispute work generally, see Commercial Legal Services. For settlement and mediation as an alternative path to resolution, see Settlement and Mediation Services. For the related Civil Transactions Law framework, see the Civil Transactions Law explainer.