Contract Law - Lecture 16a - Duress Vitiating Factors · Duress and Undue Influence are 'vitiating factors' . They make an otherwise valid contract 'voidable' (not void) . The 'innocent' party can choose whether to continue with the contract or not Origin of Duress · "Physical threat or other illegitimate pressure being used for an improper objective which is sufficiently serious to vitiate the consent of the other party" · Common law concept . Its origin is in the use of physical violence or threatened violence to make someone enter a contract . Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104 . Victim did not really agree to the contract because his or her 'will was overborne' Illegitimate Pressure - R v Attorney General (2003) . Lord Hoffman- started by referring to the decision of the H of L in Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITWF, The Universe Sentinel [1983] 1 AC 366. . 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 R v Attorney General . As regards the illegitimacy of the pressure, two issues arise (1) the nature of the pressure (2) the nature of the demand which the pressure is applied to support. . As regards the nature of the pressure, where the threat is to carry out some unlawful act, the pressure would generally be considered illegitimate. . But this does not necessarily mean that the threat of a lawful action would automatically be legitimate because the second issue could arise. . The second issue looks at the objective of the threat Objective of the threat . Lord Hoffmann quoted Lord Atkin in Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797 . "The ordinary blackmailer normally threatens to do what he has the perfect right to do, namely communicate some compromising conduct to a person whose knowledge is likely to affect the person threatened ... What he has to justify is not the threat, but the demand of money" Economic Duress Threat to break a contract · Occidental Worldwide Inv. v Skibs, The Siboen and The Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 293 . North Ocean Shipping Co v Hyundai Construction, The Atlantic Baron [1979] QB 705 Industrial action
· Universe Tankships Inc v ITWF, The Universe Sentinel [1983] 1 AC 366 · Dimskal Shipping Co SA v ITWF, The Evia Luck [1992] 2 AC 152 Reasonable Practical Alternative . 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' · Atlas Express v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] QB 833 . B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419