Duress Flashcards
(12 cards)
Skeate v Beale [1840]
duress of goods does not count as duress
Duress to goods will not suffice to render a contract voidable
Barton v Armstrong [1976]
threats to kill, duress to the person
To establish duress of the person, a threat need not be the primary or ‘but for’ cause of the threatened party entering into contract, it only needs to be a cause
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation v Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and The Sibotre) [1976]
economic threats can be duress, not on facts
- Whilst recognising that it would be possible to render a contract voidable for economic duress, it was not established in this case
- To amount to economic duress there had to be a coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent
- Commercial pressure was not sufficient.
- first case where economic duress was recognised as giving rise to a cause of action
Pao on v Lau Yiu Long [1980]
‘coercion of the will’
- An act prior to when the the promisor makes his promise can be valid consideration for the promise if the act made at promisor’s request and the parties understood that it will be rewarded by the promisor in the future
- Commercial pressure, such as a threat to abandon a transaction, does not equate economic duress
- duress requires a coercion of the will which vitiates consent
Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITWF (The Universe Sentinel) [1983]
economic duress; key question is illegitimacy of threat
- An act that would otherwise constitute a coercion of the will does not amount to duress if it has been legitimised as a lawful or non-tortious act by legislation
- Duress gives a remedy of restitution not tortious damages
Dimskal Shipping Co SA v ITWF (The Evia Luck) (No 2) [1992]
strike threat: illegitimacy and threat must be a ‘significant cause’
Economic pressure amounts to duress where it was:
1. illegitimate; and
2. it was significant cause for the plaintiff to enter into the contract
3. no viable alterative
B&S Contracts and Designs Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984]
threat to breach (strike) was economic duress
- threat to breach contract due to strike was considered illegitimate
- a threat to break a contract unless money is paid by the other party can, but by no means always will, constitute duress … it will only constitute duress if the consequences of a refusal would be serious and immediate so that there is no reasonable alternative open, such as by legal redress, obtaining an injunction, etc.
Atlas Express v Kafco Ltd [1989]
threat to breach (deliveries) was economic duress
The threat to breach an existing contract between the parties can amount to illegitimate pressure and thus economic duress
Huyton SA v Peter Cremer [1999]
causation in economic duress
The minimum test to establish causation for economic duress is the ‘but for’ test, but the test is not decisive as the illegitimate pressure must be a sufficiently significant cause and not just a but for cause
The Port Caledonia and The Anna [1903]
admiralty law treats threat of lawful act (not to save ship) as duress
- admiralty law -> distinct branch of law
- person that needs to be rescued is inherently vulnerable to exploitation
CTN Cash and Carry v Gallaher [1994]
threat not to contract in future not duress
- In obiter, a lawful action can constitute duress (i.e. lawful act duress)
- But lawful pressure made bona fide does not constitute duress
Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021]
UKSC recognises possibility of lawful act duress; different tests proposed
2 key areas where lawful act duress is recognised
1. using knowledge of criminal activity to essential blackmail
2. deliberately placing C in position of vulnerability by means regarded by the law as illegitimate
