HARDSHIP AND FORCE MAJEURE IN THE WAKE OF COVID-19: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ITALY, UK AND GERMANY

This thesis investigates how the doctrines of force majeure and hardship were addressed during the COVID-19 pandemic within three European jurisdictions: Italy, UK, and Germany. The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 created an unprecedented global disruption, severely impacting contractual relationships across sectors. The study examines the legal foundations, historical evolution, and judicial interpretations of these doctrines, analyzing how each legal system sought to balance the principle of pacta sunt servanda with the need for contractual flexibility in times of crisis. The research is structured into three parts. The first provides a general framework of hardship and force majeure, tracing their conceptual origins, definitions, and recognition in international instruments such as the UNIDROIT Principles, the CISG, and ICC model clauses. The second focuses on the domestic regimes of Italy, England, and Germany. In Italy, the analysis centers on Articles 1256, 1463, and 1467 of the Civil Code, as well as the legislative response to COVID-19 through Decree-Law No. 18/2020 (Cura Italia) and Article 91, complemented by key judicial decisions on impossibility and excessive onerousness. In UK, where hardship is not formally recognized, the focus is on the doctrine of frustration and the contractual role of force majeure clauses, with an examination of case law and government emergency measures during the pandemic. In Germany, the study considers the doctrines of Unmöglichkeit and Störung der Geschäftsgrundlage, codified in §§ 275 and 313 BGB, alongside the judicial and legislative responses to COVID-19. The third part develops a comparative analysis, highlighting how civil law and common law traditions diverge in handling unforeseen events. Italian and German courts displayed greater openness to adaptation and renegotiation, while English law maintained a stricter approach rooted in contractual autonomy and limited judicial intervention. The comparison reveals broader philosophical tensions between legal certainty and fairness, individual autonomy and collective stability, and market efficiency and social justice. The thesis concludes by addressing the question of whether greater harmonization of contract law is desirable or feasible in light of recurring global crises. Drawing on international instruments such as the UNIDROIT Principles, the CISG, and ICC model clauses, the research argues that soft law harmonization can serve as a valuable framework for future reform, enhancing resilience, predictability, and equity in cross-border transactions. Beyond its legal analysis, the study underscores the importance of these doctrines for international management, as understanding how different jurisdictions address extraordinary disruptions is essential for risk allocation, business continuity, and strategic decision-making in an increasingly interconnected global economy.