Whether the termination of a contract is due to force majeure is a question of law which depends on the contractual conditions and the facts which have occurred in the context of the present case. If the case of force majeure is not provided for by the Treaty (or if the event does not fall within the scope of the force majeure clause) and a higher event prevents the performance, this is an infringement. The law of frustration is the only remaining path available to the late party to end the treaty. If the non-performance of the contract essentially deprives the innocent party of any benefit of the contract, it is a repugnant breach that gives the innocent party the right to terminate the contract and claim damages for that disputed breach.  This means that the triggers of force majeure clauses and their consequences must always be defined in the Treaty. The appearance of an earthquake does not imply the appearance of damage or disturbance. For small and medium-sized events, it is useful to establish requirements for contractual processes; For large events, this is not always feasible or economical. Terms such as “harmful earthquakes” in force majeure clauses do not help to clarify disturbances, especially in areas where there are no other reference structures or where most structures are not seismic.  There is no fixed or usual form of force majeure clauses (read it again). In a dispute over a case of force majeure to know if a contract can be terminated or terminated due to a case of force majeure? Economic disturbances, changes in market conditions, inability to obtain financing that affects the profitability of a contract, or the ease with which the obligations of the parties can be fulfilled are not force majeure events. .