DURESS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE
The doctrine of duress in common law related to circumstances where a person is forced or
induced to act against their mind due to some form of threat or pressure. Traditionally, duress
was mainly assumed in terms of threats to a person's physical safety or bodily integrity which
is often termed as "duress to the person." The principle of duress in common law mainly
focuses on the process by which a contract was agreed upon, particularly evaluating whether
one party was exposed to force or threats during the contractual process and if such pressure
exists, the contract may be voidable.
Over time, the law has developed to identify other types of duress for example duress to
goods which involves threats or oppression expected at someone's property or possessions,
pressing them to act in a certain way and economic duress is another addition of the doctrine
where someone is forced into a contract or agreement due to financial threats or economic
harm. This development reflects a broader consideration of duress and also of the undue
influence in legal contexts.
The influence of duress in the contract is that it ended the contract voidable not void and
when a contract is considered voidable then it means that while the contract is primarily valid
and enforceable but the party who was exposed to duress has the choice to either affirm or
terminate the contract [Universe Tankships of Monrovia v International Transport
Workers Federation (The Universe Sentinel) (1983)]. If the aggrieved party based on the
occurrences encompassing the formation of contract desires to affirm it then the contract
remains valid and enforceable but if they decide to terminate it then the contract becomes
void as if it never existed [Pao on v Lau Yiu Long (1980)].
When a contract is considered voidable due to duress then it involves various important
consequences as these consequences reflect the legal difficulties concerned in cases of duress
and pursue to balance the need for fairness and justice. Firstly, the one party who has been
faced the duress should act straightaway to set aside the contract which means that they
cannot delay in taking action to terminate the contract relying on the duress they suffered and
failure to act promptly give rise to contract being affirmed and remaining enforceable [North
Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction (1979)]. Moreover, if the original party vends or
transfers the goods or belongings to a third party who was ignorant of the duress and acted in
good faith then the third party's ownership rights to the goods are usually protected for the
, purpose of balancing the benefits of innocent third parties who may have distributed with the
goods in good faith against the prejudices of the duress experienced by the original
contracting party.
There are about three types of duress such as duress to the person, duress to goods and
economic duress. Duress to the person was actually the primitive form of duress accepted
by common law and happens when one party forces another to made a contract by
intimidating violence or physical harm and if duress is recognized as a reason for the creation
of a contract, then the contract can be considered voidable. Significantly, the duress can be
the main but does not have to be the only reason for involving into the contract and if there
are other inspirations exists in forming the contract and duress is one of the reasons then the
contract can still be termed voidable. Court held that even if a party made a contract for
numerous purposes and duress being just one of them then the contract is still voidable which
highlights the prominence of protecting individuals from entering into contracts under
situations of threat even if other factors are at play [Barton v Armstrong (1976)].
Duress to goods arises when one party applies compression on another by captivating,
destroying, or threatening to take or destroy their property except a contract is agreed upon
[Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp v Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and The
Sibotre) (1976)]. In this situation, the party being forced may feel bound to enter into a
contract to shield their property from harm or loss. The acknowledgement of duress to goods
identifies that duress and undue influence can encompass outside threats to personal safety
and incorporate threats to one's possessions.
Courts describes the economic duress as it is a vitiating factor in the contract law that is
relatively a modern development in English courts. The significant precedent where one
probable reasoning for not supporting a promise was considered on policy grounds as courts
cannot allow the consideration because one party threatens another to give more payment
[Stilk v Myrick (1809)]. Economic duress refers to circumstances where one party applies
pressure on another by threatening their financial security or economic interests, captivating
them to enter into a contract against their will. The acknowledgment of economic duress as a
vitiating factor gained importance in [The Siboen and The Sibotre (1976)], [North Ocean
Shipping Co v Hyundai Construction Co (The Atlantic Baron) (1979)] QB 705, and [Pao
On v Lau Yiu] Long where courts recognized that economic duress can rendered the contract
The doctrine of duress in common law related to circumstances where a person is forced or
induced to act against their mind due to some form of threat or pressure. Traditionally, duress
was mainly assumed in terms of threats to a person's physical safety or bodily integrity which
is often termed as "duress to the person." The principle of duress in common law mainly
focuses on the process by which a contract was agreed upon, particularly evaluating whether
one party was exposed to force or threats during the contractual process and if such pressure
exists, the contract may be voidable.
Over time, the law has developed to identify other types of duress for example duress to
goods which involves threats or oppression expected at someone's property or possessions,
pressing them to act in a certain way and economic duress is another addition of the doctrine
where someone is forced into a contract or agreement due to financial threats or economic
harm. This development reflects a broader consideration of duress and also of the undue
influence in legal contexts.
The influence of duress in the contract is that it ended the contract voidable not void and
when a contract is considered voidable then it means that while the contract is primarily valid
and enforceable but the party who was exposed to duress has the choice to either affirm or
terminate the contract [Universe Tankships of Monrovia v International Transport
Workers Federation (The Universe Sentinel) (1983)]. If the aggrieved party based on the
occurrences encompassing the formation of contract desires to affirm it then the contract
remains valid and enforceable but if they decide to terminate it then the contract becomes
void as if it never existed [Pao on v Lau Yiu Long (1980)].
When a contract is considered voidable due to duress then it involves various important
consequences as these consequences reflect the legal difficulties concerned in cases of duress
and pursue to balance the need for fairness and justice. Firstly, the one party who has been
faced the duress should act straightaway to set aside the contract which means that they
cannot delay in taking action to terminate the contract relying on the duress they suffered and
failure to act promptly give rise to contract being affirmed and remaining enforceable [North
Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction (1979)]. Moreover, if the original party vends or
transfers the goods or belongings to a third party who was ignorant of the duress and acted in
good faith then the third party's ownership rights to the goods are usually protected for the
, purpose of balancing the benefits of innocent third parties who may have distributed with the
goods in good faith against the prejudices of the duress experienced by the original
contracting party.
There are about three types of duress such as duress to the person, duress to goods and
economic duress. Duress to the person was actually the primitive form of duress accepted
by common law and happens when one party forces another to made a contract by
intimidating violence or physical harm and if duress is recognized as a reason for the creation
of a contract, then the contract can be considered voidable. Significantly, the duress can be
the main but does not have to be the only reason for involving into the contract and if there
are other inspirations exists in forming the contract and duress is one of the reasons then the
contract can still be termed voidable. Court held that even if a party made a contract for
numerous purposes and duress being just one of them then the contract is still voidable which
highlights the prominence of protecting individuals from entering into contracts under
situations of threat even if other factors are at play [Barton v Armstrong (1976)].
Duress to goods arises when one party applies compression on another by captivating,
destroying, or threatening to take or destroy their property except a contract is agreed upon
[Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp v Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and The
Sibotre) (1976)]. In this situation, the party being forced may feel bound to enter into a
contract to shield their property from harm or loss. The acknowledgement of duress to goods
identifies that duress and undue influence can encompass outside threats to personal safety
and incorporate threats to one's possessions.
Courts describes the economic duress as it is a vitiating factor in the contract law that is
relatively a modern development in English courts. The significant precedent where one
probable reasoning for not supporting a promise was considered on policy grounds as courts
cannot allow the consideration because one party threatens another to give more payment
[Stilk v Myrick (1809)]. Economic duress refers to circumstances where one party applies
pressure on another by threatening their financial security or economic interests, captivating
them to enter into a contract against their will. The acknowledgment of economic duress as a
vitiating factor gained importance in [The Siboen and The Sibotre (1976)], [North Ocean
Shipping Co v Hyundai Construction Co (The Atlantic Baron) (1979)] QB 705, and [Pao
On v Lau Yiu] Long where courts recognized that economic duress can rendered the contract
