UK: Aerospace News - February 2011

Last Updated: 2 March 2011
Article by Giles Kavanagh

WHEN MANY BECOME ONE – THE POLYGAMOUS ROAD AHEAD FOR PRC CARRIERS

By Cheryl Guan

Over the last decade, PRC carriers have consolidated around three main carriers. This trend looks likely to continue. This article tracks the historical backdrop, and sets the stage for a subsequent discussion on anti competition issues.

In July 2000, the all-powerful General Administration of Civil Aviation of China (CAAC) ordered the top ten airlines in its fold to consolidate into three airline groups around Air China, China Southern Airlines and China Eastern Airlines.

Other than to prepare for full entry into the World Trade Organisation, the consolidation of PRC carriers was chiefly to streamline airline operations and to improve the overall competitiveness of the PRC aviation industry.

The flurry of consolidation activities that followed thereafter included:

  • the acquisition of Air China Southwest and Zhejiang Airlines by Air China in 2001;
  • the absorption of Zhongyuan Airlines into China Southern Airlines in 2000 and the latter's acquisition of China Northern Airlines and China Xinjiang Airlines a year later; and
  • the takeover of China Yunnan Airlines and China Southwest Airlines by China Eastern Airlines in 2001 and 2003 respectively.

In the same year, military chief Li Jiaxiang was dispatched into civilian service as the head of Air China, a position that he held up to 2008. During this time, Li Jiaxiang reportedly wiped clean (in seven years) the carrier's deficit of US$276 million accumulated since 1998. In late 2007, Li Jiaxiang published an influential book titled "Route to Fly" where he mooted the dream of transforming Air China into an "international super-carrier" through (among other things) a consolidation of PRC carriers. Shortly after the publication of the book, Li Jiaxiang was catapulted to the chief de corps of the CAAC, a position that he continues to hold.

It has been more than three years since the publication of Li Jiaxiang's book and the consolidation activities of PRC carriers show no sign of easing:

  • In July 2009, Air China injected a further US$19.3 million into Air Macau to increase its shareholding stake to 80.90 per cent before spending HK$6.3 billion (c.US$813 million) to raise its stake in Cathay Pacific Airways from 17.5 per cent to 29.99 per cent a month later.
  • In 2010, Air China mounted a takeover of Shenzhen Airlines by injecting c.US$100 million to increase its stake in the beleaguered airline to 51 per cent.
  • China Southern Airlines has now obtained significant stakes in Sichuan Airlines (approx. 39 per cent), Xiamen Airlines (approx. 51 per cent), and Chongqing Airlines (approx. 60 per cent).
  • In 2010, China Eastern Airlines completed a merger with Shanghai Airlines.

As more and more airline unions are forged, the consideration on everyone's mind will be how such consolidation interacts with regulatory concerns and, in particular, the Anti-Monopoly Law of the PRC (the AML) which came into being in August 2008. To date, the long arm of the Anti-Monopoly Commission has seemingly not reached any PRC carriers, although the same cannot be said of telecommunications and technology entities such as China Mobile, China Netcom and Baidu. Having set the historical backdrop, we will review in the next edition of Aerospace News the potential impact of the AML on the consolidation of PRC carriers as well as lessons gleaned from some notable civil cases brought under the auspices of the AML.

INJUNCTIONS: MAINTAINING THE DYNAMIC STATUS QUO

By James Jordan

On 3 December 2010 Mr Justice Beatson, sitting in the Commercial Court heard application to continue until trial a mandatory injunction obliging an airport operator to accept a carrier's scheduled flights outside airport promulgated operating hours.

Jet2.com Limited v Blackpool Airport Ltd (3 December 2010), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court

In September 2005 low cost airline Jet2.com Limited (the claimant) entered into a letter of agreement (the Agreement) with Blackpool Airport Limited (BAL) (the defendant). regarding use of the airport. The material provisions of the Agreement provided that the parties would "co-operate and use their best endeavours to promote Jet2's low cost services ... and to provide a cost base that will facilitate Jet2's low cost pricing". As part of the Agreement, both parties agreed a number of charges that would be levied by BAL for services provided to Jet2. Amongst these was a surcharge for aircraft movements outside the promulgated airport operating hours.

Pursuant to the Agreement Jet2 proceeded to operate flights out of Blackpool airport. By 2010 Jet2 had two aircraft based at the airport and expected to carry 180,000 passengers annually. Since the summer of 2006 the carrier regularly scheduled flights outside of the airport's promulgated operating hours. Between 1 November 2009 and 3 November 2010 Jet2 operated 759 flights from or to Blackpool airport of which 20.3 per cent arrived outside the promulgated operating hours.

In May 2008 a subsidiary of Balfour Beatty PLC purchased the majority shareholding in the defendant's parent company. At the time of purchase BAL was operating at a loss, forecast to be £4.5 million per annum. The new owners sought to address this by levying a £10.00 "Air Development Fee" on each departing passenger. This went some way to reducing operating losses. However, in 2009 Ryanair, the other major airline operating out of Blackpool ceased operations from the airport. Ryanair's departure resulted in a significant fall in passenger numbers. Keen to reverse this position BAL encouraged Jet2 (who had consistently said it intended to increase its capacity), to increase the size of its operation at the airport. BAL in turn continued to accept Jet2's aircraft movements outside of the promulgated hours, although not contractually obliged to do so.

On 19 July 2010 BAL wrote to Jet2 stating that the airport could not continue to incur the then current levels of loss and asked whether the carrier would have the capacity to attract an additional 120,000 departing passengers in 2011. In the same letter, BAL stated that unless profitability improved significantly it would be "... forced to re-gauge the airport's operations". Further, that re-gauging would result in downgrading of radar and traffic control facilities at the airport, "... to a position where [the airport] will no longer be able to maintain any of [Jet2's] operations".

Further letters between the parties and their legal representatives followed. On 22 October 2010 BAL wrote to Jet2 stating that due to "current financial circumstances" BAL would only operate within its published hours of 0700 and 2100. A number of flights in Jet2's winter 2010 schedule had arrival and/or departure times outside of these published operating hours.

No agreement was reached and in a letter dated 29 October 2010 BAL stated that with effect from midnight on that day, it would not accept departures or arrivals scheduled outside its publicised operating hours. BAL also notified Jet2 that the approach radar facilities would be open only between 0900 and 1900. As a result of this, two of Jet2's flights which were due to arrive outside of the promulgated operating hours on the 30 and 31 October 2010 had to divert to Manchester airport.

The injunction

On 4 November 2010 Jet2 applied successfully to Hamblen J sitting in the Commercial Court for an injunction against BAL. By its terms BAL was ordered not to refuse to provide any of the services set out in the Agreement, nor to refuse to provide radar services in a manner equivalent to that provided to Jet2 in the preceding six months.

Jet2 then applied to continue the injunction to trial. At a hearing on 3 December 2010 Mr Justice Beatson concluded that BAL should continue to be subjected to an injunction pending an expedited trial. In coming to this decision Beatson J found that:

  • In light of the dealings between the parties from 2006 the "dynamic status quo" would be maintained by allowing the injunction to continue.
  • This was a case in which not granting the relief sought would cause more harm to the claimant than to the defendant. Jet2 would need to reschedule flights to fit BAL's proposed new operating hours which in turn could lead to flight cancellations or diversions to other airports, whereas, the defendant would only have to maintain the service that it had provided hitherto.
  • Damages would not be an appropriate substitute for the injunction due to the unquantifiable reputational damage that might be occasioned to Jet2 and mindful also of the hardship suffered by passengers if Jet2 had to cancel and/or divert flights from Blackpool airport over the busy Christmas period.
  • Jet2 had a strong arguable case that BAL's change of position involved a breach of contract. Beatson J suggested that ceasing to operate outside of the promulgated hours would go against the terms of the Agreement, "... to provide a cost base that will facilitate Jet2's low cost pricing".

The decision of the Commercial Court to allow the injunction to continue to trial gives some indication as to how the court may treat this case; however, observers will have to wait until the final outcome before any firm legal principles can be established. In the meantime, both airport operators and carriers should be mindful of the possible effect that loosely worded contractual agreements regarding the provision of airport services may have on obligation on their part to provide services outside of promulgated operating hours.

GENERAL RISKS CONVENTION (GRC) AND THE UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE COMPENSATION CONVENTION (UICC)

The GRC and UICC were adopted by the International Conference on Air Law held at Montreal in April and May 2009. Under the UICC strict liability is imposed on aircraft operators for third party damage caused by an aircraft as a result of an act of unlawful interference. The GRC covers third party damage caused by an aircraft other than by an act of unlawful interference with an aircraft.  

Both conventions require 35 state ratifications in order to come into force. The UICC has the additional obstacle that ratifying states must have annual passenger numbers of 750 million before it becomes effective. South Africa became state party to both conventions on 30 September 2010. Nigeria became state party to the GRC on 8 October 2009. As of January 2011 ten states have signed the GRC. Eight have signed the UICC.  

The slow take-up rate of these conventions confirms reluctance on the part of many states to move away from reliance on existing domestic laws. US airlines in particular have made it known that they are not keen to trade in domestic laws that provide government-backed compensation for an international regime that exposes airlines to potentially uncapped (and potentially uninsurable) liability. The Conventions appear to be achieving greater support in less developed states, where existing domestic law protection for third party damage is limited.

VOLCANIC ASH AND COMPENSATION UNDER REGULATION 261

By Maria Galán

There could scarcely be a better example of meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of flight than the effects of volcanic explosions resulting in blanket international flight bans affecting every airline. So found District Judge Trent in a recent case concerning flight cancellation due to the April 2010 eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano.

Marshall v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A. (Mayor's and City of London County Court, 13 December 2010)

On 14 April Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano erupted. There followed a progressive closure of European airspace and the grounding of most scheduled passenger air traffic within Northern Europe between 15 and 23 April 2010. The Marshalls argued that resulting cancellation of their scheduled flight from Madrid to London did not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" under Regulation 261...

The Marshall family purchased tickets with Iberia for flights from Guayaquil, Ecuador to London Heathrow via Madrid, departing on 17 April 2010. No claim was made in relation to the first leg of the journey from Ecuador to Madrid. However, their Madrid to London flight, scheduled to depart on 18 April, was cancelled. The family elected to make their own travel arrangements to London. Once home, they requested a refund from Iberia for their unused Madrid to London tickets. A refund was duly paid by the carrier. Request on the part of the family for compensation was rejected.

Separate proceedings were issued by Mr Marshall on the one hand and by his wife and children on the other. The legal basis of claim was alleged breach of contract and of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The Marshall family sought recovery of their costs of alternative travel arrangements to London, compensation of Euro 250 each (under Article 7 of Regulation 261) and unspecified damages in respect of alleged inconvenience. Following application by the defendant, the claims were consolidated and on reduction of the damages claimed, allocated to the small claims track.

Consideration of the evidence

The heart of the claimants' case rested on Mr Marshall's account of a conversation with an Iberia employee on duty at the customer service desk in Madrid airport on 18 April 2010. Having considered the witness evidence from both parties the judge held that Iberia, by its representative, did not refuse to fly the claimants or fail to offer an alternative flight as soon as one became available. Further, Iberia did not represent to the claimants that they were entitled to reimbursement in respect of their alternative travel arrangements, Iberia's representative did her best to assist the first claimant given his particular circumstances and the total uncertainty surrounding the timing of any opening of European airspace and the carrier's ability to recommence flights.

The legal findings

District Judge Trent found that there had been no breach of contract by reason of flight cancellation alone. Under the Regulation the family had the choice of being re-routed or making their own way home, accepting reimbursement of the unused tickets. They elected the latter. They were not entitled to the costs of their own transport arrangements: nowhere in the Regulation is it stipulated that carriers are obliged to fund passengers' alternative means of transport.

The core remaining issue was whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under the Regulation or breach of other contractual rights arising from the carrier's alleged failure subsequent to cancellation of the scheduled 18 April flight to transport them to London. Compensation under the Regulation is payable unless the carrier can prove that the flight cancellation is due to "extraordinary circumstances".

Mr Marshall argued that notwithstanding submission by Iberia supported by a considerable amount of press and regulatory material concerning the impact of the volcanic ash on European airspace, the defendant had failed to produce any official statement that this amounted to "extraordinary circumstances" under the Regulation. Mr Marshall advanced argument, inter alia, that European airspace had in fact remained open – to propeller aircraft. (Iberia took delivery of its first jet aircraft in 1961 and did not at the material time operate propeller aircraft. Whilst it did historically operate propeller aircraft, those that remain are now museum exhibits.) The judge held: "I have no hesitation in finding, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant has proved that these circumstances represented known and unavoidable extraordinary circumstances which, by virtue of Art 5 (3) [of Regulation 261] exclude the Defendant from having to pay compensation under Article 7 (1) (a)." The claim was dismissed.

Maria Galan, Associate and Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives acted for the defendant, Iberia Lineas Aereas de España S.A.

MACAU: MINIMUM AIR TRANSPORT PASSENGER RIGHTS

by Lee Tam

To provide increased protection of air passenger rights and to enhance Macau's aviation service industry Macau Special Administrative Region (SAR) is set to implement a new administrative regulation covering air passenger rights.

The Civil Aviation Authority of Macau (AACM) began drafting a new administrative regulation in 2008, stipulating minimum rights afforded to air passengers in cases of denied boarding, flight cancellation or delay. The provisions look set to be implemented this year.  

Macau is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China and is therefore permitted to introduce its own laws to include those concerning the rights of air passengers. In drafting the new administrative regulation reference has been made to air passenger rights laws and regulations applicable in Europe, USA, Canada and Brazil.  

The new regulation affords rights to (i) passengers departing from Macau International Airport, and (ii) passengers departing from an airport located outside Macau and flying into Macau International Airport, if the operating air carrier holds an air operator certificate issued by the AACM, unless passengers are afforded rights and assistance under available provisions in the place of departure.  

The following is a summary of relevant provisions under the current draft of the new administrative regulation.  

 Denied boarding  

  1. Passengers concerned shall be offered the choice between:

    1. reimbursement of full ticket price, for the unused part(s) of the journey and for the part(s) already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with a return flight to the first point of departure (when relevant); or
    2. re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination.

  2. If there are insufficient volunteers, those passengers denied boarding against their will shall also be offered free of charge:

    • meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;
    • hotel accommodation if an overnight stay becomes necessary;
    • transport between the airport and place of accommodation;

      and
    • two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or emails

They will also have the right to compensation for damage caused up to MOP 40,000 (approx US$4,899).   

 

 Flight cancellation  

 Passengers concerned shall be entitled to:

  1. reimbursement of their full ticket price, for the unused part(s) of the journey and for the part(s) already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with a return flight to the first point of departure (when relevant), or re-routing under comparable transport conditions to their final destination;
  2. free of charge:

    • meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;
    • hotel accommodation if an overnight stay becomes necessary;
    • transport between the airport and place of accommodation; and
    • two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or emails; and

  3. compensation for damage caused up to MOP 40,000 (approx US$4,899), unless the passengers have been informed of the flight cancellation at least 15 days before the departure time.   

 

 Delay  

  1. When the carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed for over three hours, the carrier shall offer passengers, free of charge, meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time.
  2. For delays of five hours or more, the carrier shall offer passengers a choice of reimbursement of their full ticket price, for the unused part(s) of the journey and for the part(s) already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with a return flight to the first point of departure (when relevant).
  3. Where the carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed for eight hours or more and an overnight stay becomes necessary, and the passenger does not opt for ticket reimbursement, the carrier shall also offer, free of charge:

    • hotel accommodation;
    • transport between the airport and place of accommodation;
    • two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or emails.

The new regulation also provides for financial penalties should air carriers fail to comply with their obligations.  

The initial drafting has been completed, followed by a one-month consultation period during which the AACM solicited views from local aviation and tourism sectors. The AACM is now reviewing the results and considering appropriate amendments. A final draft will then be produced. The new regulation is expected to be implemented during 2011 once the necessary legal procedures are completed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions