Doctrine Of Duress Essay

Introduction

‘Duress, Whatever form it takes, is a coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent.’

A valid contract is created when all parties to the contract has acted on their own free will and/or consent. If this free will or consent of parties is disturbed and/or infringed this would amount to duress or undue influence and the contract may be set aside.

Considering the doctrine of duress; we see that the English courts have readily accepted duress to the person during the 19th Century, where the test was, actual or threatened violence to the victim. Latter developments in the law established that duress to a person’s property, that is, a threat to seize one’s property or to damage it would render a contract voidable. Thus we see that the development in the law has moved the courts to ascertain not only duress to a person but also duress to a property concerned.

Modern developments in the law have extended the doctrine of duress so as to include economic duress by parties to render a contract voidable. When the economically stronger party applies illegitimate commercial pressure on the other party; this would amount to economic duress.

Thus the

Armstrong. This case is significant considering the test applied by the courts to determine if there was a causal link between the pressure applied by the defendant and the agreement to enter in to the contract by the plaintiff. The courts held that the undue pressure applied by the defendant needs to be only one of the reasons that the plaintiff agreed on the contracting terms. This undue pressure need not be the sole reason that the plaintiff agreed on entering in to the contract. We see that a very moderate causal link has been entertained by the courts. This is due to the reason that the gravity of duress to a person is much more significant than duress to property or economic duress where the courts would demand a higher standard of causal