30-second answer
War, sanctions, pandemics, port disruption, raw-material shocks or policy changes do not automatically excuse performance. The contract, causation, foreseeability, notice, mitigation and alternatives matter.
Applied situation (illustrative)
Consider a UK distribution scenario: A port closure delays delivery and both sides invoke disruption clauses. The analysis should separate the event, notice, mitigation, alternative routes and the period of actual impact.
Classify the problem before calling everything “breach”
What the brand should focus on
A brand invoking force majeure should notify the affected obligations, expected duration and alternatives, rather than using a generic “supply chain issue” after the deadline.
What the distributor/agent should focus on
Distributors should check whether the brand continued supplying other regions, had substitute SKUs or allocated stock reasonably to test causation.
Clauses and records to check
- Covered event
- Notice deadline
- Mitigation
- Alternative route
- End of disruption
Prove the duration and actual effect of disruption, the notice given and the feasible alternatives considered. For a UK relationship, determine whether the intermediary concluded sales for the principal or bought and resold goods. That distinction changes the questions to ask about exit and commission.
Additional point for United Kingdom
Identify whether the relationship is an agency, a buy-and-resell distribution model or a franchise in substance.
Financial exposure and response options
Calculate only the period of actual disruption and record the cost of reasonable alternatives and mitigation.
Settlement terms worth writing down
For this UK arrangement, write down how covered event, mitigation and end of disruption will be handled. Set dates and responsibilities for payment or handover, and state what happens if an agreed step is missed.