WS3 Duress and Undue Influence Flashcards
Barton v Armstrong 1976
If physical threats contributed to decision to enter into contract, duress is found as long as the threats were one of the reasons for contracting
Occidental Worldwide Investment v Skibs A/S Avanti 1976
contract can be voided where there is a threat to seize the owner’s property or to damage it
DSND Subsea v Petroleum Geo Services 2000
The ingredients of actionable duress are that there must be pressure (a) whose practical effect is that there is compulsion on or a lack of practical choice, for the victim (b) which is illegitimate and (c) which is a significant cause inducing the claimant to enter into the contract
Carillion Construction Ltd v Felix 2001
Delay in cladding (Felix was a subcontractor to Carillion) meant Felix in very strong position to renegotiate with Carillion as certain number of trades were dependent on an assurance that the building was watertight; + knew was very hard to get an alternative. Got Carillion to pay substantially more for original deadline – Carillion wrote a letter protesting against demand
Atlas Express v Kafco 1989
where a party has no alternative but to accept revised terms that were detrimental to its interest, this is economic duress
B&S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications 1984
a demand of an extra £4,500 to continue a contract was made under duress because cancellation of contract would have caused serious damage to the defendant’s economic interests
Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises 2010
Defendants gave claimants a ‘take it or leave it’ offer knowing the clients needed it to satisfy a client contract; court held that there was ‘no alternative’; demands were made that they knew would cause claimants loss – backed by threats
North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd 1979
refusal to deliver a ship unless 10% more was paid over contract price; breach was illegitimate but claim ultimately failed because they failed to protest and didn’t claim for 8 months
RBS v Etridge 2002
o Court kept the definition of undue influence wide open; this case summarises most of the legal principles of undue influence
