logo

Can Susan avoid a contract under duress and undue influence?

8 Pages1582 Words52 Views
   

Management Law (LAWS20061)

   

Added on  2020-03-16

About This Document

Question one Issue: In the present case, the issue arises if Susan can avoid the contract that she has signed on the grounds of tourists and undue influence. Rule: the law of contract provides that a party is allowed by the law to avoid a particular contract on the grounds of duress and undue influence. Similarly, in case of contract law, undue influence is related with the cases where one person has significant influence over the other and that influence has been used in an unacceptable way for the purpose of

Can Susan avoid a contract under duress and undue influence?

   

Management Law (LAWS20061)

   Added on 2020-03-16

ShareRelated Documents
Question oneIssue: In the present case, the issue arises if Susan can avoid the contract that she has signed onthe grounds of tourists and undue influence.Rule: the law of contract provides that a party is allowed by the law to avoid a particular contracton the grounds of duress and undue influence. The reason is that in such cases, the consent of theparty to the contract has been obtained by some type of pressure which is considered to beunacceptable by the law of contract (Johnson v Buttress, 1936). In this regard, duress is relatedwith the circumstances where the consent of the complainant to the contract was being obtainedby using a legitimate pressure like a threat of using physical violence or by economic pressure(National Westminster Bank v Morgan, 1985). Similarly, in case of contract law, undueinfluence is related with the cases where one person has significant influence over the other andthat influence has been used in an unacceptable way for the purpose of procuring the consent ofthe other party to enter into the contract (Bank of Credit & Commerce International v Aboody,1990). The law requires that the consent of the other parties would not be vitiated by undueinfluence. In a particular case, it can be said that the contract was the result of the pressureexerted by the other party, falling short of duress. Hence, such party may take action to avoid thecontract if it has to face the pressure and it entered the contract on account of such pressure(CIBC Mortgages v Pitt, 1994).Application: In this case, it is clear that Susan has not entered into the contract with Tom out ofher free will. In this case the consent was vitiated by the presence of undue influence. Underthese circumstances, Susan signed the contract with provided that in case of divorce between theparties, she will take only $100,000. The contract was signed by Susan reluctantly and under
Can Susan avoid a contract under duress and undue influence?_1
pressure because Tom had threatened to cancel the wedding while their relatives have alreadyarrived.Conclusion: In the present case, Susan may avoid the contract as he has not entered the contracton her free will.
Can Susan avoid a contract under duress and undue influence?_2
Question twoIssue: The issue that arises in this question is related with the fact if Jason can force Steve topurchase the car on grounds of promissory estoppel.Rule: According to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, it has been mentioned that a party to thecontract may enforce a promise made by the other party even if there is no consideration presentto support the promise (Crabb v Arun 1976). This is allowed in cases where a promise has beenmade by one party to the other and the other party has relied on the promise to its detriment(Central London Property trust Ltd V. High Tree House Ltd., 1974). The doctrine of promissoryestoppel was introduced by the courts for the purpose of preventing the party making the promisefrom claiming later on that (Total Metal Manufacturing Ltd V. Tungsten Electric Co Ltd., 1955).The promise made by such party should not be enforced by the law because it is not supported byconsideration (Hughes V. Metropolitan Railway, 1877).Application: In this case by applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel, it can be said thatSteve had inspected the car for four hours. Later on he told Jason that he will buy the car only ifit had a turbo engine, tinted windows and leather seats. Jason relied on this statement and spentnearly $50,000 for installing all these things in the car. But later on, Steve refused to fulfill hispromise of purchasing the car. Therefore in the present case, it has to be seen if Jason can makeSteve fulfill his promise, particularly in view of the fact that the promise was not supported byconsideration. By applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel, it can be said that in this case, a
Can Susan avoid a contract under duress and undue influence?_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
LAWS20061 Management Law | Assignment
|7
|1634
|31

Assignment on Management Law - Doc
|12
|2376
|34

LAWS20061 Case Study of Management Law
|12
|2019
|57

PRSK4048-The Essentials Factors of a Contract
|13
|3704
|63

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

On the validity of the agreement signed between Tom and Susan
|10
|1901
|196