Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Search Results Web results Duress and Undue Influence in Contract Enforcement

6 Pages1302 Words244 Views
   

Added on  2020-01-16

Search Results Web results Duress and Undue Influence in Contract Enforcement

   Added on 2020-01-16

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
CONTRACT LAW
Search Results Web results  Duress and Undue Influence in Contract Enforcement_1
Search Results Web results  Duress and Undue Influence in Contract Enforcement_2
'Duress' under the law of Contract refers to an undue influence or pressure which is madeon one of the parties to enter into a contractual relationship. Originally, only unlawful physicalviolence was considered by Common law, which has evolved over the years to include variousother elements such as economic duress, duress to person and duress to goods. The English lawrecognizes duress as one of the weapons to be used by the aggrieved parties, who have beeninduced into a contractual relationship under the influence of violence or pressure. In the case ofMaskell v. Horner (1915) the court highlighted the conceptual framework for considering duressas one of the acceptable defences to render the contract voidable.1 It has been widely opined bythe courts and other prominent jurists that Free Consent formulates to be one of the essentialelements of a valid contract, absence of which has the potential to render the contract void abinitio. In pursuance to the same, the doctrine of duress has been propounded by the courts toaddress the issues wherein consent has been vitiated through duress. Thus, it is essentially madeapplicable in situations where the parties have been forced to enter into a contract. It has beenopined by the court in R v. Hurley & Murrary (1967) the volition undertaken in the case ofduress is one of the touchstones recognized by the freedom of contract.In furtherance, to the same in the case of R v. Graham (1982) it was opined by the courtthat application of doctrine of duress shall be allowed only in instances wherein it could beestablished that the aggrieved party was reasonably and genuinely under threat or pressure tosome form of harm. The scope of this element also included fear in respect to any of theimmediate family members or such other persons, which are otherwise closely attached to theaggrieved.2 This approach was further reiterated in the case of R v. Conway (1989), wherein itwas required that the aggrieved shall feel responsible towards the safety of another person.Another legal element which is assessed to apply the doctrine is in relation to establishment of adirect casual nexus between a coercive action and the decision to enter into a contractualrelationship. Furthermore, in the case of R v. Safi (2003) the subjective and objective test wasevolved to assess the existence of a fear or threat. Major emphasis was laid on requirement toestablish that the concerned person believed in existence of such a threat and in pursuance to the1Ewan McKendrick, 2014. Contract Law: Text, Cases and materials (Oxford University Press)2Duress by Threatened Breach of Contract(2010)<http://www.lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/3208479-sutton.pdf> accessed on 15th April 20171
Search Results Web results  Duress and Undue Influence in Contract Enforcement_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Difference between Duress and Undue Influence
|5
|977
|30

Can Susan avoid a contract under duress and undue influence?
|8
|1582
|52

Duress, Undue influence and Unconscionability of Contracts
|12
|3547
|92

Aspects of Contract and Negligence in Business Assignment
|17
|6193
|96

Case Study on Contract Law (Doc)
|7
|2673
|234

Business and Corporation Law
|9
|2609
|123