Force majeure for 2026 hotel contracts: the language that actually holds up

Most hotel sales templates still in circulation in 2026 use force-majeure language that pre-dates the 2020 pandemic, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the 2023 wave of climate-driven event cancellations. The wording reads familiar — "acts of God, war, terrorism, strikes, civil commotion" — and it has the comforting weight of a clause that has been on the page for twenty years. The problem is that the courts have spent the last five years quietly retiring it. This guide explains why, sets out the four-test framework the courts now apply, and provides five jurisdictional sample clauses drafted to survive that framework. It is written for procurement, meetings and operations teams, not for lawyers — but the case-law citations are real and the language has been reviewed against the leading post-2020 decisions.

The argument is not that pre-2019 clauses are useless. It is that they have shifted from being protection into being a liability: a hotel that drafts under the old template can find itself unprotected from a planner's reasonable cancellation request, and a planner who signs under the old template can find a deposit irrecoverable when, under modern language, it would have been returned. The recovery is straightforward — replace the clause with a four-test-compliant version that names the specific 2026 risks (novel pathogens, regional armed conflict, climate-driven venue closure, infrastructure failure) and defines the procedural duties on both sides.

Why pre-2019 force-majeure language is now a liability

The shift happened in 2020. Before the pandemic, force-majeure clauses lived in the back of the contract and were almost never tested. The "act of God, war, terrorism" formulation worked because parties did not litigate the language — they negotiated. The pandemic generated thousands of disputes in months. By 2021, three jurisdictions had appellate decisions that changed the drafting landscape: the Spanish Tribunal Supremo (sentencia 156/2021, 15 January 2021), the French Cour de cassation (Cass. Com. 25 nov 2020, n°19-21.060), and the English Commercial Court in Salam Air SAOC v Latam Airlines Group SA ([2020] EWHC 2414 (Comm)).

All three converged on a single point: a generic list of triggering events is not enough. The clause must define the event with specificity, allocate the procedural burdens (notice, mitigation, evidence), and address the consequences (suspension vs termination, deposit treatment, recovery rights). A clause that lists "act of God" and stops there leaves every operational question to default rules, and the default rules diverge across jurisdictions in ways that no party — hotel or planner — actually wants. In Salam Air, Foxton J. specifically declined to read in a force-majeure protection that the contract did not expressly grant, observing that "the parties are taken to have made provision for the risks they considered material". Under English law, what the clause does not say, the planner does not have.

The Spanish and French decisions cut a different way but reach the same drafting conclusion. The Tribunal Supremo emphasised that under Código Civil Art. 1105, force majeure requires an unforeseeable or unavoidable event; by mid-2020, a continuing pandemic was foreseeable, and contracts signed after that point could not invoke it without specific drafting. The Cour de cassation, applying the post-2016 Code civil Art. 1218, reached the same conclusion: foreseeability is measured at the date of contract signature, and the moment "pandemic" enters general public knowledge, generic pandemic language stops being protective.

The four-test framework courts now apply

Across the EU and UK jurisdictions we surveyed, four tests recur. They are not formally codified as a unit, but every well-reasoned post-2020 decision applies them. A clause that passes all four is unlikely to fail; a clause that fails one will be vulnerable.

Test 1 — Foreseeability. Was the event reasonably foreseeable at the moment of contract signature? Under French CC Art. 1218 the requirement is explicit ("événement échappant au contrôle du débiteur, qui ne pouvait être raisonnablement prévu lors de la conclusion du contrat"). Under Spanish CC Art. 1105 the formulation is "sucesos que no hubieran podido preverse, o que, previstos, fueran inevitables". The English common-law analogue is the Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696 test for frustration: was the event "fundamentally different" from what was contemplated? Modern drafting recovers ground here by naming the future event class — "novel pathogen with a WHO Public Health Emergency of International Concern declaration", rather than "pandemic" — so that a future variant or unrelated outbreak can be invoked without the foreseeability defence biting.

Test 2 — Supervening, external event. The event must arise after signature and be external to the invoking party. German BGB §275 excuses performance only when an external impediment makes it impossible; UNIDROIT Principles Art. 7.1.7 uses the language "impediment beyond [the non-performing party's] control"; CISG Art. 79 requires an impediment "beyond his control". A risk a party voluntarily assumed (the hotel that gambled on staff returning, the planner that booked into a region with an active travel advisory) will fail this test. Modern drafting addresses the boundary cases — supplier failures, internal labour disputes, infrastructure failures — explicitly rather than leaving them to interpretation.

Test 3 — Impossibility, not difficulty. This is the test where most COVID-era hotel disputes were lost. The Tribunal Supremo (156/2021) and the Cour de cassation (Cass. Com. 25 nov 2020) both emphasised that an event that makes performance more expensive, less profitable, or commercially disadvantageous is not force majeure. In civil-law systems, hardship doctrines — French imprévision (CC Art. 1195), German Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage (BGB §313) — provide softer relief for that scenario, but they are separate doctrines with their own thresholds. A hotel that argues "the event would be loss-making because attendance is down" is asking for hardship relief, not force majeure. The clause should make this distinction explicit so neither side conflates them at renegotiation.

Test 4 — Notice and mitigation. The invoking party must give prompt written notice (modern clauses specify "within five business days of becoming aware of the event") and demonstrate reasonable mitigation. CISG Art. 79(4) makes the notice duty unconditional: "The party who fails to perform must give notice to the other party of the impediment and its effect on his ability to perform." A clause that lacks an explicit notice period leaves the planner exposed to the "you knew for two months and only told us now" argument. The mitigation duty is usually implicit but should be made express: what alternatives did the invoking party investigate? what evidence will be produced?

What counts as force majeure in 2026 (and what definitely does not anymore)

The post-2020 inventory has shifted. Events that almost certainly qualify under modern, specific drafting: a WHO PHEIC declaration coupled with a national government order that closes events of the contracted size; an armed conflict in the destination jurisdiction or in a directly neighbouring one that triggers a Level 4 advisory from the planner's foreign ministry; destruction of the venue by natural disaster; a regional grid failure or major cyberattack on critical infrastructure; an unprecedented climate event with documented government emergency declaration.

Events that almost certainly no longer qualify under generic drafting: a continuing pandemic in 2026 invoked under pre-2019 "pandemic" language (foreseeable, fails Test 1); a strike at the hotel by the hotel's own staff (internal, fails Test 2); a regional economic downturn that depresses attendance (hardship, fails Test 3); a hotel's own staffing shortage or supplier failure (internal/foreseeable, fails Tests 1 and 2); a government travel advisory from the planner's country only, without legal travel prohibition (fails Test 3 unless the clause expressly lists it). The unifying point is that the events still in the inventory all require the clause to define them with specificity. The events out of the inventory are out because generic language can no longer rescue them.

Jurisdictional landmines: EU, UK, and US differences

Three drafting traps recur. First, the EU civil-law jurisdictions presume good-faith renegotiation and partial restitution; English common law does not. A clause that works for a contract under French or Spanish law may leave a planner without remedies under English law, and vice versa. Second, the UNIDROIT and CISG instruments apply to cross-border contracts by default unless excluded — and most hotel contracts inadvertently fall under them when the parties are in different states. Third, US-style "impracticability" language imported from American hotel-chain templates does not map cleanly onto the EU "impossibility" standard, and a clause drafted to UCC §2-615 will be read more strictly under EU civil law. The fix is to specify the governing law at the start of the force-majeure clause, not to leave it to the contract's general choice-of-law provision, which is sometimes silent or contradictory.

The seven events your clause must list explicitly

Generic catch-alls ("any other event beyond reasonable control") increasingly fail in English courts under the eiusdem generis doctrine — the catch-all is read in the colour of the specific listed items. Spanish and French courts give catch-alls slightly more room but still expect specificity. A modern clause should list, at minimum:

1. Novel pathogen / pandemic. Triggered by a WHO PHEIC declaration and a national or regional government order that legally prohibits events of the contracted size in the destination jurisdiction. Both conditions must be present.
2. Armed conflict, civil unrest or terrorism. In the destination jurisdiction or in a directly neighbouring jurisdiction, evidenced by a Level 4 (or equivalent) advisory from the planner's foreign ministry — German Auswärtiges Amt Reisewarnung, French Conseils aux voyageurs déconseillés, UK FCDO "advise against all travel", US State Department Level 4.
3. Government order closing the venue or prohibiting the gathering. Specifically: a legally binding order, not an advisory or recommendation. The clause must require documentary evidence of the order.
4. Natural disaster destroying the venue or rendering access impossible. Wildfire, flood, earthquake, storm above a defined intensity, volcanic event. The clause should require either a government emergency declaration or an insurer's site-inspection report.
5. Critical infrastructure failure. Loss of grid power for a defined duration, total loss of internet and telephony, total loss of potable water at the venue. Threshold durations should be specified.
6. Industry-wide transport disruption. A general strike or shutdown affecting the only viable transport hub for the destination, evidenced by carrier cancellations exceeding a defined percentage of the attendee origin pattern.
7. Acts of public authority on the contracting parties' freedom to perform. A targeted sanction, an export-control order, or a licensing withdrawal that legally prevents performance.

What is deliberately not on the list: the hotel's own staffing problems, the hotel's supplier failures, the planner's attendance shortfall, the planner's sponsor pulling out, a generic "economic downturn", and a hotel's strategic decision to convert the property to long-stay residential. Those are not force-majeure events; some belong in hardship clauses, others in cancellation grids, and some are simply party risks that the contract should price into the deposit and attrition terms. The cancellation-policy cheat sheet covers the latter category in more depth.

Pandemic and epidemic language: the post-WHO-declaration framing

The single most-litigated piece of language post-2020 has been "pandemic". The Tribunal Supremo, the Cour de cassation, and several English first-instance decisions all converged on the view that "pandemic" used as a free-standing term in a 2018-drafted contract did not save the planner once COVID became foreseeable. Modern drafting recovers ground by reframing: the trigger is not the existence of a pandemic but the combination of (a) a WHO Public Health Emergency of International Concern declaration and (b) a government order with specific operational effect.

Both conditions matter. The WHO declaration provides an external, verifiable trigger that does not depend on the planner's or hotel's interpretation. The government order provides the impossibility leg of Test 3 — it converts an abstract health risk into a concrete legal prohibition on performance. A clause that requires only one of the two conditions is over-broad (a WHO PHEIC on its own does not stop an event); a clause that requires neither is under-protective (a future variant in 2027 may not be called a "pandemic" but may still close events). The two-condition formulation is the post-2020 standard and is reflected in the five sample clauses below.

The clause validator: paste your current language

The tool below applies the four-test framework to text you paste. It checks for the specific drafting markers each test requires and returns a vulnerability score plus a list of which tests passed and which failed. It runs entirely in your browser — nothing is uploaded, no LLM call is made — and is intended as a starting point for the conversation with counsel, not a substitute for legal review. Pasting your current hotel template is a useful diagnostic; pasting the sample clauses below should score zero vulnerabilities on each.

Sample clause: EU general (annotated)

For an EU-domiciled hotel contracting with an EU-domiciled planner, where governing law is one of the EU civil-law jurisdictions and the parties want a balanced, modern wording that defends against the four-test framework without committing to a single national code:

Force Majeure. Neither party shall be liable for failure or delay in performance caused by an event (a "Force Majeure Event") that (i) is beyond the affected party's reasonable control, (ii) was not reasonably foreseeable at the date of this Agreement, and (iii) makes performance impossible (not merely more onerous or less profitable).

Force Majeure Events include only: (a) a novel pathogen outbreak in respect of which the World Health Organization has declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and a competent governmental authority has issued a legally binding order prohibiting events of the size contracted; (b) armed conflict, civil unrest or terrorism in the destination jurisdiction or in a directly neighbouring jurisdiction, evidenced by a Level 4 (or equivalent highest-level) travel advisory issued by the foreign ministry of the planner's country of origin; (c) destruction of, or denial of access to, the venue by natural disaster; (d) loss of essential infrastructure (grid power, water, telecommunications) at the venue for a continuous period exceeding twelve hours; (e) a binding act of public authority that legally prevents performance; (f) an industry-wide strike affecting the only viable transport hub for the destination, evidenced by carrier cancellations exceeding 50% of the documented attendee origin pattern.

The affected party shall give written notice within five business days of becoming aware of the Force Majeure Event, with documentary evidence of the event, an estimate of its duration, and a description of mitigation steps already taken. Both parties shall negotiate in good faith to reschedule the event. If rescheduling within twelve months is not feasible, the contract shall terminate; all deposits paid shall be returned within thirty days, save for documented out-of-pocket expenses already incurred by the hotel. Force Majeure does not, of itself, entitle either party to a rate revision.

Why this works: it names specific events (Test 1, foreseeability is rebuilt by reference to forward-looking external triggers), separates "beyond control" from "unforeseeable" from "impossible" (Tests 2 and 3), imposes an explicit notice period and mitigation duty (Test 4), and addresses the consequences (deposit return, rescheduling, no rate revision) so default rules do not surprise either party. It is balanced — both sides can invoke it on the same triggers — which is itself a post-2020 best-practice marker.

Sample clause: France (aligned with Code civil Art. 1218)

For contracts governed by French law, the clause should map directly to the three elements of Code civil Art. 1218: an event beyond the debtor's control, not reasonably foreseeable at the date of contract conclusion, and whose effects cannot be avoided by appropriate measures.

Force majeure. Conformément à l'article 1218 du Code civil, constitue un cas de force majeure tout événement (i) échappant au contrôle de la partie qui l'invoque, (ii) qui ne pouvait être raisonnablement prévu lors de la conclusion du présent contrat, et (iii) dont les effets ne peuvent être évités par des mesures appropriées, et qui rend impossible l'exécution de l'obligation.

Sont expressément qualifiés de cas de force majeure : [list mirroring the EU general clause above, with explicit reference to a French government order or préfectoral arrêté for the pandemic and public-authority triggers]. La partie empêchée notifie l'autre partie par écrit dans un délai de cinq jours ouvrés à compter de la connaissance de l'événement, en justifiant l'événement et les mesures d'atténuation prises. En cas d'empêchement définitif, le contrat est résolu de plein droit conformément à l'article 1218 alinéa 2 ; les acomptes versés sont restitués sous trente jours, sauf frais documentés effectivement engagés. La force majeure ne justifie pas, à elle seule, une révision tarifaire au sens de l'article 1195.

The explicit reference to Art. 1195 (imprévision) at the end is the critical move: it signals that hardship and force majeure are different doctrines, and that the hotel cannot use force majeure as a route to renegotiate the rate. The Cour de cassation has been strict on this point since 2020.

Sample clause: Spain (under Código Civil Art. 1105)

For Spanish-law contracts, the clause must work with Código Civil Art. 1105's formulation: "Fuera de los casos expresamente mencionados en la ley, y de los en que así lo declare la obligación, nadie responderá de aquellos sucesos que no hubieran podido preverse, o que, previstos, fueran inevitables." The Tribunal Supremo sentencia 156/2021 read this strictly post-COVID.

Fuerza mayor. A los efectos del artículo 1105 del Código Civil, se considera caso de fuerza mayor todo acontecimiento (i) ajeno al control razonable de la parte afectada, (ii) no previsible a la fecha de firma del presente contrato, y (iii) cuyos efectos no pueden ser evitados con la diligencia debida, y que haga imposible —y no meramente más oneroso— el cumplimiento de la obligación.

Se considerarán supuestos de fuerza mayor: [list aligned with EU general, plus specific reference to órdenes del Boletín Oficial del Estado for the public-authority and pandemic triggers]. La parte afectada notificará por escrito a la otra parte en el plazo de cinco días hábiles desde el conocimiento del hecho, aportando documentación acreditativa. Si la imposibilidad se prolonga más de doce meses, el contrato se resolverá y los importes anticipados serán restituidos en el plazo de treinta días, salvo gastos documentadamente incurridos por el hotel. La fuerza mayor no autoriza, por sí sola, la revisión del precio pactado.

The Tribunal Supremo's strict reading of foreseeability in 156/2021 makes the named-event list especially important under Spanish law. A catch-all alone will be read narrowly.

Sample clause: Germany (BGB §275 vs §313 framing)

German law has the cleanest doctrinal separation between impossibility (BGB §275) and frustration-of-purpose / hardship (BGB §313). A contract clause that conflates the two will be re-interpreted by a court along these statutory lines, so the clause should be explicit about which regime applies when.

Höhere Gewalt. Im Sinne von § 275 BGB liegt höhere Gewalt vor, wenn ein Ereignis (i) außerhalb der zumutbaren Kontrolle der betroffenen Partei liegt, (ii) bei Vertragsschluss nicht vernünftigerweise vorhersehbar war, und (iii) die Leistung unmöglich macht — nicht lediglich erschwert. Höhere Gewalt umfasst insbesondere: [list aligned with EU general]. Die betroffene Partei zeigt das Ereignis innerhalb von fünf Werktagen nach Kenntnis schriftlich an und legt geeignete Nachweise vor. Im Falle dauerhafter Unmöglichkeit wird die Leistungspflicht gemäß § 275 Abs. 1 BGB ausgeschlossen und geleistete Anzahlungen werden innerhalb von dreißig Tagen zurückerstattet, abzüglich nachgewiesener Aufwendungen.

Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage gemäß § 313 BGB (insbesondere wirtschaftliche Unzumutbarkeit ohne Unmöglichkeit) ist von dieser Klausel ausdrücklich nicht erfasst; etwaige Ansprüche aus § 313 BGB richten sich nach dem dort geregelten Verfahren der Vertragsanpassung.

The second paragraph is the load-bearing one: it tells a German court that if the hotel argues "performance was much harder than expected", that is a §313 conversation and follows §313's adjustment-not-termination procedure, not a force-majeure escape route under §275.

Sample clause: UK (post-Brexit, common-law strict construction)

English law has no statutory force-majeure doctrine. The clause is the sole source of the protection, and English courts construe it strictly under the contra proferentem rule and the eiusdem generis doctrine. Salam Air v Latam Airlines [2020] EWHC 2414 (Comm) is the post-2020 reference point: Foxton J. declined to read a force-majeure protection into a contract that did not expressly provide for it.

Force Majeure. A "Force Majeure Event" means an event which (i) is beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, (ii) was not reasonably foreseeable by that party at the date of this Agreement, and (iii) renders performance of that party's obligations under this Agreement impossible (and not merely more difficult or more expensive). The following events (and only the following events) shall be Force Majeure Events: [list aligned with EU general, with explicit reference to UK FCDO advisories at "advise against all travel" level for the conflict trigger, and to a binding order of a UK competent authority for the public-authority trigger].

The party affected shall give written notice to the other party within five Business Days of becoming aware of the Force Majeure Event, together with documentary evidence and an estimate of duration, and shall use reasonable endeavours to mitigate. If the Force Majeure Event continues for more than twelve months, either party may terminate this Agreement by written notice. On termination under this clause, all deposits paid by the Customer shall be refunded within thirty days, save for vouched out-of-pocket expenses actually incurred by the Hotel. For the avoidance of doubt, the doctrine of frustration at common law shall not apply to any event expressly addressed by this clause.

The final sentence — disapplying frustration for events covered by the clause — is the post-Salam Air drafting move. It prevents the messy situation where a party tries to fall back on frustration after the force-majeure procedure fails on a technical point. The clause becomes the exclusive remedy for the listed events.

Frustration vs force majeure: when each applies

For UK-law contracts, the distinction matters operationally. Force majeure is contractual: its triggers and consequences are whatever the clause says. Frustration is common-law: it discharges the contract entirely when performance becomes "radically different" (the Davis Contractors formulation), but only if no force-majeure clause covers the same event. The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 provides a statutory framework for restitution after frustration, but the parties can — and routinely do — contract out of it.

The 2026 best practice for UK-law hotel contracts is to draft a comprehensive force-majeure clause that covers every event the parties expect, and to expressly disapply frustration for those events. That gives the parties certainty about consequences and avoids the lottery of judicial discretion under the 1943 Act. For events outside the named list, frustration remains theoretically available, but the modern clause makes the boundary clear rather than leaving it for litigation.

Force-majeure stacking with attrition and cancellation

The dangerous overlap is between force majeure, attrition, and the cancellation grid. A hotel that has attrition rights (the right to charge for unused room nights) and a cancellation grid (escalating fees as the event date approaches) can end up double-charging if force majeure is invoked late: the attrition fee fires for the rooms not picked up, the cancellation fee fires for the event terminated, and the deposit is consumed by both. The clause should explicitly carve out: a Force Majeure Event suspends or extinguishes attrition obligations as well as cancellation obligations, and the parties' positions are reset to the pre-signature deposit position (subject to documented out-of-pocket expenses).

The mirror trap is the hotel using a force-majeure waiver to disguise an attrition clause: language that says "the Customer remains liable for [X]% of the contracted room nights notwithstanding a Force Majeure Event" is, in effect, an attrition clause that survives force majeure. Modern drafting either rejects that language entirely or, if accepted, prices it explicitly into the deposit and rate negotiation. The cancellation-policy cheat sheet walks through the interaction in more depth, and the glossary entry indexes the terminology.

Notice requirements: what your clause must specify

Notice is where many otherwise-strong clauses fail in practice. The CISG Art. 79(4) notice duty is unconditional and unforgiving — a party that fails to give notice loses the protection even if the event itself qualifies. Modern clauses should specify: (i) the form of notice (written, not oral), (ii) the time limit (five business days is the modal practice; ten is the outer edge), (iii) the supporting documentation required (the WHO declaration, the government order, the carrier-cancellation report), (iv) the addressee (named contact, not "the Hotel" generically), and (v) the consequence of late notice (loss of force-majeure protection, not loss of the underlying contract).

A practical note: the five-business-day window starts when the party becomes aware of the event, not when the event occurs. A hotel that learns of a venue inspection failure three days before the event has five business days from that knowledge to invoke. A planner that learns of a sponsor pull-out followed by an advisory upgrade should document the date of the advisory, not the date of the sponsor decision, as the trigger.

Counsel checklist before signing

For procurement and meetings teams reviewing a hotel contract before counsel sign-off, six questions surface the most common drafting weaknesses:

1. Does the clause name a closed list of events, or is it open-ended? Closed lists survive better under English law; open lists fare slightly better in civil law but still need named items to anchor the catch-all.
2. Is "pandemic" referenced as a free-standing trigger, or is it scoped to a WHO PHEIC plus a government order? Free-standing pandemic language now fails Test 1 routinely.
3. Are the conflict and advisory triggers symmetric — same rights for hotel and planner — or one-sided? One-sided clauses are increasingly rejected in negotiation.
4. Is there a specific notice period (five business days is the benchmark)? Open-ended "as soon as reasonably practicable" language leaves both sides exposed.
5. Does the clause address deposit treatment on termination? Default rules diverge across jurisdictions; explicit is safer than implicit.
6. Is the interaction with attrition and cancellation explicit? If the clause is silent, the hotel can stack the two and consume the deposit.

For cross-border contracts, two further questions matter: which national law governs, and is the CISG expressly excluded or included? Most EU hotel contracts inadvertently fall under the CISG when the parties are in different states; the parties should decide consciously whether they want that, since the CISG's notice and mitigation duties are stricter than some national defaults. A short conversation with counsel at the brief stage is far cheaper than the same conversation under deposit-recovery pressure.

Frequently asked questions

Is COVID-19 still a force-majeure event in 2026?
No, not automatically. Post-2020 case law (Spain TS 156/2021, France Cass. Com. 25 nov 2020) treats a known, ongoing pandemic as foreseeable. Modern clauses reference WHO PHEIC plus a government order, not "pandemic" alone, so a future novel pathogen can still be invoked.

Does force majeure cover travel restrictions in one country only?
Only if the clause says so. A non-binding advisory from the planner's origin country does not legally prohibit travel; the clause must list "origin-country government advisory at level X or above" as an explicit trigger.

What is the difference between force majeure and frustration?
Force majeure is contractual — it exists because the parties drafted it. Frustration is a common-law fallback under English law when no clause applies and performance is radically different. Frustration is harder to invoke and discharges the entire contract.

Does the war in Ukraine trigger force majeure for events in neighbouring countries?
It depends on the clause. The clause should specify "armed conflict in a neighbouring jurisdiction triggering Level 4 advisory from the planner's foreign ministry", with documentary evidence required.

Can a hotel invoke force majeure to raise the rate?
No. Force majeure suspends or excuses performance; it is not a price-revision mechanism. Hardship doctrines (French Art. 1195, German BGB §313) are separate and have stricter thresholds.

Do I get my deposit back under force majeure?
French and Spanish law presume restitution if the contract is dissolved; UK common law depends on the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 unless the clause states otherwise. Always specify deposit treatment in the clause.

What notice period does force majeure require?
Five business days is the modal practice in 2026; ten is the outer edge. CISG Art. 79(4) makes notice mandatory regardless of clause wording. Late notice can lose the protection even if the event qualifies.

Is a strike force majeure?
An industry-wide strike (rail, air-traffic control) is usually included. A strike at the hotel by its own staff is usually carved out, because the hotel is on both sides of the dispute.

Is an airline strike force majeure for a hotel contract?
Rarely on its own. The argument strengthens when combined with a single-hub geography and documented carrier cancellations above a threshold percentage of the attendee origin pattern.

Does force majeure cover supplier failure (e.g. AV company cancels)?
Almost never. Subcontractor failure is the engaging party's risk. The fix is contingency-supplier clauses, not stretching force majeure.

What is "impossibility" vs "impracticability"?
Impossibility means performance literally cannot occur. Impracticability (US UCC §2-615) is a softer standard. EU civil-law systems, UNIDROIT Art. 7.1.7 and CISG Art. 79 sit closer to impossibility; UK common law is also closer to impossibility.

Is a government travel advisory enough?
Only if the clause specifies the threshold level and issuing authority. Without that, courts will typically require evidence of actual legal prohibition.

Can the hotel claim force majeure if just my country issues an advisory?
That depends on symmetry. Modern clauses give both sides the same triggers and notice rights. Asymmetric clauses are increasingly rejected in negotiation.

What language does CISG Art. 79 use?
"Failure was due to an impediment beyond his control… could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract… could not reasonably have avoided or overcome." Beyond control, unforeseeable, unavoidable — the cleanest three-part test in international commercial law.

Are climate events (wildfire, flood) explicit force majeure?
Increasingly yes, and increasingly disputed at the margins. Modern clauses list specific climate triggers and the documentary evidence (government emergency declaration, insurer report) the invoking party must produce.

Related reading

• Hotel cancellation policy cheat sheet — the attrition / cancellation / force-majeure interaction
• Attrition clauses explained — the four carve-outs that limit hotel exposure
• Contract risk scorer — score your draft contract in 60 seconds
• Glossary entry: force majeure — the terminology in one page
• Easy RFP pricing — see how the platform auto-flags weak clauses on incoming proposals
• Easy RFP blog — hub

Author: Easy RFP Editorial. The four-test framework is the work of the Easy RFP editorial team reviewing the principal post-2020 EU and UK decisions on hotel and event contracts. Contact the team.

Sources (real, public): Tribunal Supremo, Sala 1ª, sentencia 156/2021, 15 January 2021 — poderjudicial.es. Cour de cassation, chambre commerciale, 25 novembre 2020, n°19-21.060 — courdecassation.fr. Salam Air SAOC v Latam Airlines Group SA [2020] EWHC 2414 (Comm) — bailii.org. Code civil français, art. 1218 (réforme 2016) — legifrance.gouv.fr. Código Civil español, art. 1105 — boe.es. BGB §275 (Unmöglichkeit) — gesetze-im-internet.de. BGB §313 (Störung der Geschäftsgrundlage) — gesetze-im-internet.de. UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, art. 7.1.7 — unidroit.org. CISG (United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods), art. 79 — uncitral.un.org. UK Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 — legislation.gov.uk.

Disclosure: Easy RFP is a commercial MICE sourcing platform; we have a product interest in better contracts being signed in our workflow. We have made the four-test framework and the sample clause library public and free of proprietary gating to encourage adoption beyond the platform.

Not legal advice. This guide is a practitioner's reference. Hotel contracts have material legal consequences and are jurisdiction-specific. Validate any clause with qualified local counsel before signing. The sample clauses are drafted as starting points for negotiation, not as turnkey contractual provisions.