Short answer. Possibly, but the bar is high. Article 1267 releases the obligor, in whole or in part, only when the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties. Ordinary cost increases and bad bargains do not qualify, however painful they are.

What the law says

When the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part.

Civil Code, Article 1267 — Doctrine of Unforeseen Difficulty (Rebus Sic Stantibus). Read the full provision →

The provision, and where it sits

Article 1267 reads: When the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part. The word also matters, because it follows Article 1266, which releases the obligor in obligations to do when performance becomes legally or physically impossible without his fault. Article 1267 is the softer neighbour: it addresses performance that remains possible but has become something the parties never bargained for. That is a real doctrine and not a general licence to escape a contract that turned out badly.

The test is about contemplation, not cost

Notice what the article measures. It does not ask how much money you are losing; it asks whether the difficulty is manifestly beyond what the parties had in mind when they agreed. So a risk that was foreseeable at signing is out, however unwelcome its arrival. A risk the contract itself allocated is out too, because the parties plainly contemplated it — that is what the clause was for. Long-term supply agreements are especially exposed here: fluctuation in input prices, freight and exchange rates over a multi-year term is the ordinary weather of such contracts, and enduring it is precisely what the supplier was paid to do.

Release in whole or in part

The most useful words in the article are in whole or in part. Relief is not confined to tearing the contract up. A partial release can reduce the quantity, narrow the scope, or excuse the portion of performance that has become disproportionate while leaving the rest of the agreement standing. That is what makes Article 1267 a workable basis for renegotiation rather than only for litigation. It is also why the counterparty often prefers a negotiated variation: a supplier released entirely leaves the buyer with nothing, whereas a trimmed contract still delivers most of what the buyer needs.

Read your own contract first

Before reaching for the Code, work through the agreement. A force majeure clause, a price-adjustment or escalation formula, a hardship or material-adverse-change provision, or a termination-for-convenience right may resolve the question without any doctrine at all — Article 1306 lets the parties establish such terms as they deem convenient, so long as these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Then document the change while it is happening: what shifted, when, by how much, and what you told the other side. Article 1267 turns on a comparison with the moment of contracting, and that comparison has to be evidenced.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.