DURESS

Topic of the day

- The meaning of duress

- The elements of undue influence

- The difference between duress and undue influence

THE MEANING OF DURESS

Duress in contract law is the use of force, threats or undue influence to force someone to enter into a contract against their will. It may invalidate a contract, and cases involving duress often revolve around proving the existence of duress. Sections and cases vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but common elements include demonstrating that threats of harm, financial pressure, or other forms of undue influence had a significant influence on a contracting party's decision-making. See the cases of Barton v Armstrong and Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco Ltd where coercion plays a key role in contractual disputes.

THE ELEMENTS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE

Undue influence in contract law refers to a situation where one party takes advantage of a position of power to exploit the weaknesses of another party, resulting in an unfair agreement. Key elements include a trusting relationship, inappropriate persuasion by the dominant party, and the resulting unfairness. Sections and cases may vary, but common examples include Sections 16 and 19 of the Act. See the case of Royal Bank of Scotland v Ettridge which highlight the circumstances under which courts examine the presence of undue influence, emphasizing the need for clear evidence to demonstrate exploitation and unfairness in a contractual relationship.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DURESS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE

In contract law, duress involves coercive means, such as threatening or forcing a party to enter into a contract against their will. Undue influence, on the other hand, occurs when one party uses a position of trust or authority to manipulate another party into reaching an unfair agreement. The main differences include the nature of the pressure applied. Sections and cases may vary, but common examples are provided for under Section 16 on undue influence and Section 19 on Duress of the Act. See the cases such as Barton v Armstrong for duress and Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge for undue influence which illustrate how the courts distinguish between these concepts depending on the circumstances of each case.