The Force Majeure Was Declared. The Cargo Was Already on the Water.
Quote from chief_editor on June 10, 2026, 5:30 pmForce majeure declarations mid-voyage create specific problems: the cargo exists, is moving, and the financial and legal consequences are immediate.
The vessel had been at sea for 12 days, carrying 40,000 tonnes of Ukrainian sunflower oil toward a European buyer, when the seller declared force majeure. The trigger: a regulatory change in Ukraine that restricted the export of certain agricultural commodity derivatives. The seller's counsel advised that the export restriction qualified under the contract's force majeure clause.
The cargo was already outside Ukrainian jurisdiction — it had cleared customs, had a bill of lading dated before the export restriction came into force, and was legally in transit toward the destination. The legal question was whether the force majeure applied to the sale contract obligation even though the physical performance — export of the cargo — had already been completed.
The seller's argument: the force majeure affected their ability to supply additional cargo under the ongoing contract. The buyer's argument: this specific cargo was already shipped; force majeure did not excuse performance that was already in execution.
Both parties spent the next three weeks in legal correspondence while the vessel continued toward Rotterdam. The cargo arrived. It was discharged. It was warehoused at the buyer's cost. Payment was withheld pending resolution of the force majeure question. Resolution took seven months.
When Force Majeure Applies to a Contract Versus a Specific Delivery
Force majeure in a commodity sale contract can affect the contract at different levels: it can excuse a specific delivery obligation that is affected by the qualifying event, it can suspend the entire contract for the duration of the event, or it can terminate the contract if the event continues beyond a specified period. The scope of the force majeure — which obligations it excuses, for what period, and with what notice and mitigation requirements — is defined by the contract's force majeure clause.
The critical legal question in the sunflower oil case was whether force majeure could be declared for a delivery that was already in physical execution. In English law, which governs most commodity contracts using FOSFA or similar terms, performance that has been substantially completed is generally not excusable by force majeure — the obligation to perform was met when the cargo was shipped, and the force majeure event occurred after the material acts of performance had been completed.
The seller's counsel's advice that the force majeure applied to future deliveries under the contract may have been correct. The application of the same declaration to a cargo already at sea was legally contested, and the contestation consumed seven months and significant legal costs for both parties.
Industry estimates for force majeure disputes in agricultural commodity trades involving Ukrainian or Russian origins have increased substantially since 2022, with the conflict creating a range of genuine performance impossibility situations alongside situations where force majeure is declared preemptively or overbroadly. The cases that are genuinely impossible — where physical performance cannot occur regardless of intent — resolve more quickly than cases where force majeure is claimed for economic difficulty or regulatory ambiguity.
Managing the Mid-Transit Notification
For a cargo that is in transit when a force majeure event occurs, the seller's immediate obligations include: notifying the buyer in writing with specificity about the nature of the event, the contractual clause being invoked, and the specific deliveries affected; taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of the force majeure; and keeping the buyer informed as the situation develops.
For the cargo already in transit, the notification should clearly state whether the force majeure is being declared for that cargo or only for future deliveries. A force majeure declaration that is ambiguous about scope — that could be read as applying to in-transit cargo or only to future shipments — will be interpreted by each party in the way that benefits their commercial position. The resulting dispute adds cost to an already difficult commercial situation.
The legal and commercial complexity of mid-transit force majeure is sufficiently specialized that decisions about declaration scope and notification language warrant input from commodity trade lawyers with experience in the specific commodity class and applicable dispute resolution framework. The commercial instinct to declare broadly and sort it out later produces disputes that are more complex and expensive than a narrowly scoped declaration that matches the actual facts of the force majeure event.
Force majeure declarations mid-voyage create specific problems: the cargo exists, is moving, and the financial and legal consequences are immediate.
The vessel had been at sea for 12 days, carrying 40,000 tonnes of Ukrainian sunflower oil toward a European buyer, when the seller declared force majeure. The trigger: a regulatory change in Ukraine that restricted the export of certain agricultural commodity derivatives. The seller's counsel advised that the export restriction qualified under the contract's force majeure clause.
The cargo was already outside Ukrainian jurisdiction — it had cleared customs, had a bill of lading dated before the export restriction came into force, and was legally in transit toward the destination. The legal question was whether the force majeure applied to the sale contract obligation even though the physical performance — export of the cargo — had already been completed.
The seller's argument: the force majeure affected their ability to supply additional cargo under the ongoing contract. The buyer's argument: this specific cargo was already shipped; force majeure did not excuse performance that was already in execution.
Both parties spent the next three weeks in legal correspondence while the vessel continued toward Rotterdam. The cargo arrived. It was discharged. It was warehoused at the buyer's cost. Payment was withheld pending resolution of the force majeure question. Resolution took seven months.
When Force Majeure Applies to a Contract Versus a Specific Delivery
Force majeure in a commodity sale contract can affect the contract at different levels: it can excuse a specific delivery obligation that is affected by the qualifying event, it can suspend the entire contract for the duration of the event, or it can terminate the contract if the event continues beyond a specified period. The scope of the force majeure — which obligations it excuses, for what period, and with what notice and mitigation requirements — is defined by the contract's force majeure clause.
The critical legal question in the sunflower oil case was whether force majeure could be declared for a delivery that was already in physical execution. In English law, which governs most commodity contracts using FOSFA or similar terms, performance that has been substantially completed is generally not excusable by force majeure — the obligation to perform was met when the cargo was shipped, and the force majeure event occurred after the material acts of performance had been completed.
The seller's counsel's advice that the force majeure applied to future deliveries under the contract may have been correct. The application of the same declaration to a cargo already at sea was legally contested, and the contestation consumed seven months and significant legal costs for both parties.
Industry estimates for force majeure disputes in agricultural commodity trades involving Ukrainian or Russian origins have increased substantially since 2022, with the conflict creating a range of genuine performance impossibility situations alongside situations where force majeure is declared preemptively or overbroadly. The cases that are genuinely impossible — where physical performance cannot occur regardless of intent — resolve more quickly than cases where force majeure is claimed for economic difficulty or regulatory ambiguity.
Managing the Mid-Transit Notification
For a cargo that is in transit when a force majeure event occurs, the seller's immediate obligations include: notifying the buyer in writing with specificity about the nature of the event, the contractual clause being invoked, and the specific deliveries affected; taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of the force majeure; and keeping the buyer informed as the situation develops.
For the cargo already in transit, the notification should clearly state whether the force majeure is being declared for that cargo or only for future deliveries. A force majeure declaration that is ambiguous about scope — that could be read as applying to in-transit cargo or only to future shipments — will be interpreted by each party in the way that benefits their commercial position. The resulting dispute adds cost to an already difficult commercial situation.
The legal and commercial complexity of mid-transit force majeure is sufficiently specialized that decisions about declaration scope and notification language warrant input from commodity trade lawyers with experience in the specific commodity class and applicable dispute resolution framework. The commercial instinct to declare broadly and sort it out later produces disputes that are more complex and expensive than a narrowly scoped declaration that matches the actual facts of the force majeure event.