1. What is the relationship between duress and consideration?
consideration = something that has value in the eyes of the law, it is
an essential element to make a contract and must be provided in order
for a contract to be legally binding
duress = element which can vitiate consent and thus render a contract
voidable, illegitimate pressure – established in , compulsion of the will
[absence of choice] – comes from North ocean shipping case
if one is not present -> no duress
duress = pressure that is illegitimate and leaves without another option
– 4 outlines made in Pao On
duress makes a contract voidable [makes it voidable and not void,
because victim party still has right to elect or go to court and rescind
contract – meaning contract will obligations given back to the other
party and both parties put back into position were in before contract
was enforceable], consideration makes a contract enforceable
relationship for duress and consideration = duress is only wanting more
profit, it is analysed when there is no consideration
2. Should any threat to breach a contract always count as an
illegitimate threat for the purposes of establishing economic duress?
not every threat to break contract is duress
pao on case = agreement could not be set on terms of
duress, legal advice was there and worked against duress,
two sophisticated businesses – therefore, cannot be
oblivious
some economic pressure is fine – courts all business to apply
tactics and associations
commercial pressure isn’t duress – hard to large businesses
to claim duress
3. In establishing economic duress, why is it so important to ask
whether the victim had a reasonable alternative course of action
open to him?
if victim had another option – not economic duress
4. Why is a threat not to contract treated differently from a threat to
breach a contract?
threat not to contract – parties may not have any
contractual obligations in order for them to be bound and
may be room for the parties to not continue with the
contract, parties don’t have duty to enter into contract –
have contractual freedom
consideration = something that has value in the eyes of the law, it is
an essential element to make a contract and must be provided in order
for a contract to be legally binding
duress = element which can vitiate consent and thus render a contract
voidable, illegitimate pressure – established in , compulsion of the will
[absence of choice] – comes from North ocean shipping case
if one is not present -> no duress
duress = pressure that is illegitimate and leaves without another option
– 4 outlines made in Pao On
duress makes a contract voidable [makes it voidable and not void,
because victim party still has right to elect or go to court and rescind
contract – meaning contract will obligations given back to the other
party and both parties put back into position were in before contract
was enforceable], consideration makes a contract enforceable
relationship for duress and consideration = duress is only wanting more
profit, it is analysed when there is no consideration
2. Should any threat to breach a contract always count as an
illegitimate threat for the purposes of establishing economic duress?
not every threat to break contract is duress
pao on case = agreement could not be set on terms of
duress, legal advice was there and worked against duress,
two sophisticated businesses – therefore, cannot be
oblivious
some economic pressure is fine – courts all business to apply
tactics and associations
commercial pressure isn’t duress – hard to large businesses
to claim duress
3. In establishing economic duress, why is it so important to ask
whether the victim had a reasonable alternative course of action
open to him?
if victim had another option – not economic duress
4. Why is a threat not to contract treated differently from a threat to
breach a contract?
threat not to contract – parties may not have any
contractual obligations in order for them to be bound and
may be room for the parties to not continue with the
contract, parties don’t have duty to enter into contract –
have contractual freedom
