The Evolution of Doctrine of Duress

Law

Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Evolution of Doctrine of Duress......................................................................................................1
Elements of Duress..........................................................................................................................2
Forms of Duress...............................................................................................................................2
Illegitimate pressure in economic duress.........................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Duress can be determined as a situation in which a person carries out an act because of
violence, pressure or threat towards an individual. As per the view points of Black’s Law
Dictionary, duress is considered to be unlawful threat or coercion that is used in order to
minimise another to act that others would not. In other words, it is the weapon that enables
common law protect victim of improper pressure. When a contract is formed, then there are
many terms and conditions that are included and these are important for all the parties included
to be followed. No party can force to get into a contract or to fulfil any type of term. The court
intervenes at the time when a party get into a contract due to pressure that is considered to be
unacceptable. For these terms which are unacceptable and acceptable there is a thin difference
that can get shifter overtime. All the boundaries that are considered to be unacceptable pressure
are pushed towards encompass different forms of other pressure like economic pressure.
Evolution of Doctrine of Duress
There are people who make use of restrictive approach for economic duress as it is
considered to be more difficult to relief for the available on this ground. In order to reduce the
duress, there is use of conceptual framework as it generally stems from the laudable notion that
is required to be focused on contracting with another.
All the laws that were related with duress were considered to be threatened violence to
the person. Common laws for duress are assimilated to tort or crime. However, all these
categories were overlapped and this is the reason due to which it considered to be developed
much beyond the narrow scope towards the threatening that is attained for personal violence1.
Apart from this equity is delivered with the promise that is made with immoral or unethical use
of superior bargaining position. On the other hand, inequality is the equitable doctrine of
pressure is the force made on another person in order to complete what is not willing by a person
to perform. However, it is identified that there is a duress that is created by voidable contract at
the time when it is threatened by the personal violence for duress of goods. It was in the 18th
century when economic duress began that also in the single cases of detention or wrongful
seizure of personal property. However, there are not parallel developments in England that were
developed. Common law distress was considered to be crude, obscure notion, ill defined and
1
1

crude that is except in the cases of overt threats. When involved in the court on frequent basis,
then pressure have lacked sufficiently definition for the effective control at the time when
economic coercion in the marketplace as at issue.
The case Dyson J, DSND v Petroleum Gas Services (2000) where DSDN entered into a
contract with PGS after which it was found by the former that there is a misrepresentation of
facts and figures in the original agreement. PGS then attempted to cancel the agreement claiming
that DSDN have breached the terms and conditions which were earlier discussed between the
two. Hence, false representation of facts and figures have been made by the party. Although
DSDN agreed to bring changes in the agreement, PGS have the right to terminate the agreement
due to misrepresentation. However, the claim is that whether the contract can be cancelled under
doctrine of duress or not. The judge initiated the decision claiming that PGS claim is required to
be dismissed. The misrepresentation does not allow the party to get into the contract. Further,
there was no such statement I the contract claiming that warranted the notice of termination to be
issued to the other party.
Elements of Duress
People get into a contract on regular basis and that also on daily basis and this is due to
the pressure that can be a kind or another. As per the case of
Barton v Armstrong in the
life of finance and commerce there are various type of acts that are done
under pressure is considered to be liable. This is required to be avoided
towards the ground of duress, this means that all the agreement will be
vulnerable in order to attack the ground.
All the law that are included is required to be determined as a pressure
that is unacceptable and the stress is acceptable and so it can not be
considered as constitute duress2. This way only possible when two of the
requirements that are needed to be sissified for the relief for the availability
on grounds duress. It is important to have compulsion towards the will for
complainant and to and it is also required that the pressure should be regard
as law is not considered as legitimate. As per one of the elements that are
concerns the coercive effects that is made on consent was truly given.
2 Hall, S., Critcher, C. and Roberts, B., 2013. Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state and law and
order. Palgrave Macmillan
2