Force majeure and reasonable endeavours: a turbulent contractual tale How does the recent UK Supreme Court decision affect force majeure clauses in contracts? Sophie Cordonier breaks it down in her latest article. Articles Sophie Cordonnier Published: June 17, 2024 Contact author Download article pdf On 15 May 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18, in which it overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal and unanimously found that a “reasonable endeavours” provision in a force majeure clause did not require a party to accept non-contractual performance, absent clear wording to that effect.   Background In 2016, RTI Ltd (“RTI”), as charterers, entered into a contract of affreightment (“COA”) with MUR Shipping BV (“MUR”), as owners, for the shipment of monthly consignments of bauxite from Guinea to Ukraine. Freight was payable in US dollars.  The COA provided that neither party would be liable to the other for loss in the event of a force majeure “ event ” or “ state of affairs ” which could not be “ overcome by reasonable endeavours from the Party affected ”.  While such an event or state of affairs was in operation, the obligation of each party to perform the contract was to be suspended. In April 2018, when RTI’s parent company became subject to US sanctions, RTI could no longer make payments of freight to MUR in the contractual currency.  RTI offered to make all payments in Euros and to cover any currency losses but MUR proceeded to invoke the force majeure clause, asserting that it was prevented from receiving payments in US dollars.   RTI commenced arbitration against MUR claiming the cost of chartering replacement vessels during the period of MUR’s suspension of performance under the COA.  The tribunal determined that MUR could not rely on the force majeure clause, as the “ event ” or “ state of affairs ” could have been “ overcome ” by MUR’s acceptance of RTI’s offer to p