Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]- the pressure must amount to a coercion of will, which vitiates consent, it must be shown that the payment that was made or the agreement that was entered into was not a voluntary act. Huyton v Cremer [1999]- Per Mance J The Evia Luck [1992]- Per Lord Goff-The pressure should be a 'significant cause' CTN Cash and Carry v Gallaher [1994] 4 All ER 714 The Court of Appeal stated obiter that the fact that it was a lawful threat was not in itself fatal to a claim for duress. It was, therefore, possible in appropriate circumstances for a threat to commit a lawful act to amount to duress. n Possibility was recognised, but not applied. Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistani International Airlines Corporation [2017]- claimants were made to sign a new agreement with the defendant airline, or they would not be allowed to sell the defendant's tickets at all. It was held that the claimants had been subject to illegitimate pressure. Regulation 7- Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Prohibits aggressive commercial practices by a trader against a consumer. Redress under Part 4A of the Regulations. Contract is rendered voidable - Claimant can get rescission. May be lost through: Affirmation Lapse of time Impossibility of restitution No recovery of damages. Common law concept. Its origin is in the use of physical violence or threatened violence to make someone enter into a contract. n Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104 Victim did not really agree to the contract because his or her "will was overborne". Lord Hoffman- started by referring to the decision of the H of L in Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITWF, The Universe Sentinel [198ffi] 1 AC ffi66. In The Universe Sentinel, Lord Scarman identified two elements to duress (1) pressure amounting to compulsion of the will (2) the illegitimacy of that pressure.