Thundthornthep Yaem-Uthai, Ph.D. | LAS Legal | Updated 16 April 2026 | ภาษาไทย
Floods, earthquakes, pandemics, wars — these events can make contractual performance impossible. What does Thai law say? Force Majeure, or "het sut wisat" (เหตุสุดวิสัย), is a legal doctrine every business operator must understand. It can serve as a shield or become a trap, depending on whether it is invoked correctly and whether a well-drafted FM clause was in place from the outset.
This article covers: the definition and elements under Thai law (TCCC Section 219), COVID-19 lessons, how to draft a proper FM clause, the notification procedure, and the distinctions from Hardship and Frustration. It also includes landmark Supreme Court decisions and three real-world business case studies.
The Thai Civil and Commercial Code (TCCC), Section 8 defines force majeure as follows: "An act of God means any event, whether as to its occurrence or as to its consequences, which could not have been prevented even if the person subject thereto, or about to be subject thereto, had taken such care as must reasonably be expected from a person in the same situation."
To successfully invoke force majeure under Thai law, the invoking party must prove four elements:
| # | Element | Description | Example Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unforeseeable | The event could not have been predicted at the time the contract was made | Official announcements, news reports |
| 2 | Irresistible | Even with reasonable precautions, the event could not have been prevented | Evidence of mitigation attempts |
| 3 | Not the Party's Fault | The invoking party did not cause the event | Timeline of events |
| 4 | Causal Link | The event directly caused the inability to perform the contractual obligation | Direct link between cause and non-performance |
TCCC Section 219 provides: "If performance of an obligation becomes impossible owing to a circumstance for which the obligor is not responsible, the obligor is discharged from the obligation."
That is, if force majeure makes performance entirely impossible, the obligor is discharged — no obligation to perform and no liability for damages.
Section 219 requires Impossibility, not mere difficulty or increased cost. If there is still some way to perform, even at greater expense, the obligation is not impossible under TCCC Section 219. An FM claim without proof of true impossibility will be rejected, and the invoking party will remain liable for breach of contract. Option A: Before invoking FM, evaluate whether any alternative means of performance exist. | Option B: Consult legal counsel to assess the strength of the FM argument before making any claim.
TCCC Section 372 provides that in a synallagmatic contract, if performance becomes impossible for a reason not attributable to the obligor, the obligor loses the right to claim counter-performance. In other words:
TCCC Section 220 provides that the obligor shall be liable for damage resulting from negligence, unless the obligor proves that the damage arose from a circumstance for which the obligor is not responsible. In short, the party invoking FM bears the burden of proof.
The COVID-19 pandemic during 2020–2022 generated a large number of FM disputes in Thailand. The key lessons from this period are as follows.
| Scenario | FM Accepted? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Restaurant ordered closed by EOC | Yes | Impossible to provide service at all (Impossibility) |
| Restaurant open but fewer customers | No | Still operational; revenue reduced only (Difficulty) |
| Event space lease — event cancelled | Possibly | Depends whether government order directly prohibited the event |
| Export contract — all flights cancelled | Yes | No transportation route remaining whatsoever |
| Construction contract — cost up 50% due to COVID | No | Construction still possible but more expensive — Hardship, not FM |
| # | Lesson | What to Add to the Contract |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Many contracts had no mention of pandemics in their FM clause | Add "Pandemic, Epidemic, Government-mandated Closure" to the FM list |
| 2 | Multi-layered government orders (EOC + Emergency Decree) made interpretation difficult | Specify "any order of any competent government authority" constitutes FM |
| 3 | Disputes over event venue and hotel contracts were extremely common | Add explicit FM provisions to Deposit/Cancellation policies |
| 4 | Supply chain disruption did not generally qualify as FM | Add a Supply Chain Disruption Clause or Alternative Sourcing Provision |
| 5 | Parties did not know how to notify FM; notices were late or incomplete | Define the FM notification procedure clearly, with a template notice letter |
| 6 | After the crisis, parties did not know what to do next | Add provisions for Resume of Performance and Extension of Time |
| Issue | Force Majeure (FM) | Hardship (Changed Circumstances) | Frustration (Common Law) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact | Performance entirely impossible | Performance possible but excessively onerous | The purpose of the contract is defeated |
| Legal system | Civil Law + Contract | Civil Law — Sec. 388 | Common Law (England) |
| Legal consequence | Discharge from obligation | Request for contract adjustment | Contract automatically terminated |
| Statutory reference | TCCC Sec. 8, 219, 372 | TCCC Sec. 388 | No direct equivalent in Thai law |
| Example | Factory flooded — goods cannot be delivered | Steel price up 300% — construction still possible | Flowers ordered for coronation — event cancelled |
TCCC Section 388 provides that if the subject-matter of an obligation is lawful and was impossible at the time the obligation was created, the contract is void. Some Thai legal scholars also invoke Section 388 to request judicial adjustment of contracts when circumstances have fundamentally changed. However, this approach does not yet have clear and consistent case law in Thailand, and the threshold for court intervention is high.
A well-drafted FM clause ensures both parties know in advance what happens when an FM event occurs, minimising disputes.
Clause [__]. Force Majeure
[__].1 Definition: "Force Majeure" means any event or circumstance beyond the reasonable control of either Party, including but not limited to natural disasters, floods, earthquakes, storms, pandemics, widespread power outages, war, terrorism, declarations of states of emergency, or any order or prohibition by any government authority having legal competence, which prevents the affected Party from performing its obligations under this Agreement.
[__].2 Effect of Force Majeure: If either Party is unable to perform any obligation under this Agreement as a direct result of a Force Majeure event, that Party shall not be liable for such non-performance for so long as the Force Majeure event continues.
[__].3 Duty to Notify: The Party affected by Force Majeure shall give written notice to the other Party immediately, and in any event no later than [5/7/14] business days from the date the affected Party became aware or should have become aware of the Force Majeure event.
[__].4 Duty to Mitigate: The Party invoking Force Majeure shall take all reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of the Force Majeure event and shall take steps to resume performance of its obligations as soon as reasonably practicable.
[__].5 Maximum Duration: If the Force Majeure event continues for more than [30/60/90] consecutive days, either Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of [5/7] days.
When an event that may constitute Force Majeure occurs, the following steps must be taken immediately:
If the contract specifies a notice period and notice is not given in time, the other party may argue that the right to invoke FM has been waived, even if the underlying event would otherwise qualify. Always notify as soon as the event is known — do not wait until the full impact is clear.
| Scenario | Legal Consequence | Parties' Rights |
|---|---|---|
| Temporary FM | Performance suspended | Must resume performance when FM ends |
| Permanent FM | Obligation discharged — TCCC Sec. 219 | Contract terminates; neither party liable |
| FM exceeds contractual maximum duration | Right of termination arises | Either party may terminate by notice |
| Advance payment made; permanent FM occurs | May be required to return payment (unjust enrichment) | Per TCCC Sec. 406–419 |
In M&A transactions, mergers, or large credit agreements, both Force Majeure Clauses and Material Adverse Change (MAC) / Material Adverse Effect (MAE) Clauses often appear. They serve similar functions but have important differences.
| Issue | Force Majeure (FM) | Material Adverse Change (MAC) / Material Adverse Effect (MAE) |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Discharge performance obligation when impossible | Grant a right to exit the deal when a significant change occurs |
| Trigger condition | True impossibility of performance | A materially adverse change (even if performance remains possible) |
| Legal consequence | Suspension or discharge | Right to terminate / walk away from deal |
| Used in | General commercial, service, and construction contracts | M&A SPAs, financing agreements, share purchase agreements, credit facilities |
| Burden of proof | Party invoking FM must prove | Party invoking MAC/MAE must prove the change is material |
| Example | Factory flooded — delivery impossible | Target company in M&A loses 40% revenue before deal closes |
Thai courts interpret "impossible" (พ้นวิสัย) strictly under TCCC Section 219. It means the obligor cannot perform at all — not merely that performance became harder or more expensive. If there is any way to perform, even at higher cost, the obligation is not "impossible."
The party claiming FM must prove under TCCC Section 220 that: (1) the event actually occurred; (2) it directly caused the inability to perform; and (3) reasonable mitigation measures were taken.
Although Thai law does not set a fixed notice deadline, courts give significant weight to "reasonableness." An unjustifiably late notice may be interpreted as a waiver of the right to invoke FM.
If the parties entered the contract knowing that the relevant event had already occurred (e.g., contracting during an active COVID outbreak), courts generally will not accept an FM claim for that event, since it was already foreseeable.
The following Supreme Court decisions (ฎีกา) illustrate how Thai courts have applied force majeure principles in commercial disputes.
| Decision | Facts | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court Decision No. 1401/2534 | Cargo ship sank in a storm | Sinking due to storm constituted force majeure under TCCC Section 8 — carrier discharged from liability |
| Supreme Court Decision No. 6405/2538 | Goods damaged in a storm during transit | Storm occurred, but carrier failed to prove it had taken reasonable preventive measures — FM rejected; carrier remained liable |
| Supreme Court Decision No. 10285/2557 | Bank misappropriated the buyer's payment | Misappropriation constituted FM for the buyer — time extension for payment granted; buyer not in default |
| Supreme Court Decision No. 3999/2559 | Late delivery caused by vessel scheduling issues | Scheduling problems were within the carrier's control — FM rejected; delivery delay not excused |
| Supreme Court Decision No. 465/2534 | Tugboat sank in strong waves | Party invoking FM must prove that the event was beyond reasonable prevention; mere occurrence of the event is insufficient without proof of precautions taken |
Company A leased retail space in a shopping mall. The EOC issued an order closing all shopping malls under the Emergency Decree. Company A could not open its store at all for two months.
Company B contracted to deliver machinery to a buyer's factory. The 2011 flood inundated major transportation routes and the buyer's factory itself for three months.
Company C, a construction contractor, invoked FM due to COVID-19, claiming that increased costs and supply chain disruptions made the project impossible to complete on time.
Before signing any contract with a Force Majeure clause, verify these 10 points:
FM clauses that use language such as "any event beyond a party's control" without further definition create an open door for a party seeking to avoid its obligations to invoke FM in almost any circumstance. Option A: Use an Inclusive List approach — enumerate specific FM events, then add a general catch-all with a qualifying condition (e.g., "events of comparable severity and beyond reasonable control"). | Option B: Add express carve-outs: "Financial difficulty, change in market conditions, and increase in costs shall not constitute Force Majeure."
When FM is successfully invoked, the legal consequence is either Suspension (temporary deferral) or Termination (permanent ending of the contract), depending on the nature of the event and the contract's terms. These have very different implications.
| Issue | Suspension | Termination |
|---|---|---|
| Is the contract still in force? | Yes — merely deferred | No — ended |
| Must performance resume? | Yes, when FM ends | No |
| Payments already made | Adjusted for work done | May need partial refund |
| Notice required? | Notice of FM and expected duration | Express termination notice |
| Appropriate for | Temporary FM expected to end | Permanent or prolonged FM |
Many contracts state that FM suspends performance, but do not specify when a party may terminate if FM persists. This leaves the non-affected party waiting indefinitely. Option A: Specify clearly: "If FM continues for more than 90 consecutive days, either Party shall have the right to terminate by written notice." | Option B: Add a Hardship Renegotiation Period before the right to terminate arises.
For contracts with foreign counterparties, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published the ICC Force Majeure Clause 2020 as a reference standard. This clause is more comprehensive than relying solely on statutory Thai law. If adopted, it should be adapted to align with Thai law and the parties should agree on specific notice periods. It is particularly recommended in construction contracts, EPC agreements, and international sale of goods contracts. Invoking an internationally recognised FM standard reduces disputes in international arbitration. UNIDROIT Principles 2016 Article 7.1.7 is another reference standard used where the parties choose general principles of law rather than a specific national law.
Organisations with multiple significant contracts should establish an FM response plan before any crisis arises: designate responsible personnel, prepare a template FM notice letter, maintain an FM register for key contracts, and run a drill annually. Advance preparation reduces response time and prevents loss of rights through late notification.
| Scenario | Risk Level | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Contract contains no FM clause whatsoever | 🔴 High | Must rely on TCCC Sec. 219 directly — elements are strict and burden of proof is heavy |
| Invoking FM due to increased costs alone | 🔴 High | Courts will reject — party remains fully liable for damages |
| FM clause is overly broad, without defined limits | 🔴 High | Counterparty may invoke FM in almost any circumstance |
| FM clause does not specify a notice period | 🟡 Medium | Notify immediately; document date and method of notification |
| FM clause has no maximum duration provision | 🟡 Medium | Both parties may be left waiting indefinitely |
| FM clause in main contract inconsistent with sub-contracts | 🟡 Medium | Review and align before signing |
| Complete FM clause in place; procedure properly followed | 🟢 Low | Low risk — still must prove the FM event actually occurred and was unavoidable |
Force Majeure is not a ready-made excuse usable in every difficult situation. All elements under TCCC Section 8 must be satisfied — in particular, the event must create true impossibility, not merely hardship or difficulty. The COVID-19 experience demonstrated that a clear, well-drafted FM clause — defining the FM events, the notification procedure, the legal consequences, and the maximum duration — is the best way to prevent unnecessary disputes. The LAS Shield principle: prepare the FM clause before the crisis occurs, not after it arrives.
Read more: LAS Shield Part 7 — Warranty vs Guarantee Under Thai Law
Disclaimer: This article is prepared for academic and general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice for any specific situation. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel before taking any legal action. | บทความนี้จัดทำเพื่อวัตถุประสงค์ทางวิชาการและให้ความรู้ทั่วไปเท่านั้น ไม่ถือเป็นคำแนะนำทางกฎหมายเฉพาะราย