Duress and Economic Duress
This lecture covers the doctrine of Duress and Economic Duress. Duress involves one party coercing another party into a contract so that they do not enter it of their own free will. A contract which has been entered into under duress is voidable (i.e. capable of being set aside) but not void (i.e. a nullity from its beginning). In order to avoid the contract, the wronged party must take action to rescind the contract.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lecture you will be able to:
identify the common law concept of duress;
identify the types of factual situations where the concept might apply;
understand the relationship between economic duress and consideration.
Cases
Duress
Williams v Bayley [1866] LR 1 HL 200
Barton v Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104
Economic Duress
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] 3 All ER 65
DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Services ASA [2000] BLR 530
Universe Tankships Inc. v International Transport Workers’ Federation (The Universe Sentinel) [1983] 1 AC 366
North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd [1979] QB 705(The Atlantic Baron)
CTN Cash & Carry Ltd v Gallaher [1994] 4 All ER 714
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 Q.B. 617
Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] Q.B. 833; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 389
R v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003] E.M.L.R. 24
This lecture covers the doctrine of Duress and Economic Duress. Duress involves one party coercing another party into a contract so that they do not enter it of their own free will. A contract which has been entered into under duress is voidable (i.e. capable of being set aside) but not void (i.e. a nullity from its beginning). In order to avoid the contract, the wronged party must take action to rescind the contract.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lecture you will be able to:
identify the common law concept of duress;
identify the types of factual situations where the concept might apply;
understand the relationship between economic duress and consideration.
Cases
Duress
Williams v Bayley [1866] LR 1 HL 200
Barton v Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104
Economic Duress
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] 3 All ER 65
DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Services ASA [2000] BLR 530
Universe Tankships Inc. v International Transport Workers’ Federation (The Universe Sentinel) [1983] 1 AC 366
North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd [1979] QB 705(The Atlantic Baron)
CTN Cash & Carry Ltd v Gallaher [1994] 4 All ER 714
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 Q.B. 617
Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] Q.B. 833; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 389
R v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003] E.M.L.R. 24
This lecture covers the doctrine of Duress and Economic Duress. Duress involves one party coercing another party into a contract so that they do not enter it of their own free will. A contract which has been entered into under duress is voidable (i.e. capable of being set aside) but not void (i.e. a nullity from its beginning). In order to avoid the contract, the wronged party must take action to rescind the contract.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lecture you will be able to:
identify the common law concept of duress;
identify the types of factual situations where the concept might apply;
understand the relationship between economic duress and consideration.
Cases
Duress
Williams v Bayley [1866] LR 1 HL 200
Barton v Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104
Economic Duress
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] 3 All ER 65
DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Services ASA [2000] BLR 530
Universe Tankships Inc. v International Transport Workers’ Federation (The Universe Sentinel) [1983] 1 AC 366
North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd [1979] QB 705(The Atlantic Baron)
CTN Cash & Carry Ltd v Gallaher [1994] 4 All ER 714
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 Q.B. 617
Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] Q.B. 833; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 389
R v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003] E.M.L.R. 24