Opinion ID: 396160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Force Majeure Clause.

Text: 21 Rachelle argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that Rachelle would have been excused from performance under the contract if the bioavailability problem was not within its reasonable control. Paragraph 12 of the contract provides: 22 Performance of this Agreement by either RACHELLE or UPJOHN shall be excused to the extent that performance is prevented, restricted or interfered with by any of the following causes: 23 (d) Any other cause whatsoever, whether similar or dissimilar to those enumerated above, beyond the reasonable control of the party. 24 Rachelle claims that the bioavailability problem was the wholly unexpected result of the second methanol wash. It argues that the jury was entitled to conclude that this unforeseeable circumstance was beyond Rachelle's reasonable control within the meaning of paragraph 12. The trial court refused to submit the issue to the jury. It reasoned that although the bioavailability problem may have been unforeseeable, its cause was a manufacturing decision which was within Rachelle's control. We agree. We find no merit in Rachelle's assertion that the cause of the defect was the equivalent of an act of God to which force majeure clauses traditionally apply. See, e. g., McLouth Steel Corp. v. Jewell Coal and Coke Co., 570 F.2d 594, 608 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 801, 99 S.Ct. 43, 58 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978). 25