Duress under English law

Undue Influence:
Undue influence is another concept related to duress in contract law. It occurs when one party, due to their relationship with the other party, exercises influence to overpower the other's free will and manipulate them into entering a contract. Unlike duress, which involves illegitimate pressure, undue influence involves a relationship of trust and confidence between the parties.
Undue influence can be categorized into two types: actual undue influence and presumed undue influence. Actual undue influence refers to situations where there is clear evidence of one party exerting influence over the other. Presumed undue influence, on the other hand, arises from certain relationships, such as those between parent and child, solicitor and client, or trustee and beneficiary, where the law presumes that influence was exercised.
If a contract is found to be tainted by undue influence, it may be voidable at the option of the victim of the influence. The victim can seek to set aside the contract and may also be entitled to claim damages for any losses suffered.
Illegitimate Threats:
For duress to be established, the party exerting pressure must make an illegitimate threat. Illegitimate threats can take various forms, including threats of physical harm, blackmail, economic loss, or damage to reputation. It is important to note that the threat does not have to be directed towards the person themselves; it can also be directed at their family, property, or business interests.
The courts examine the nature and seriousness of the threat to determine if it is illegitimate. It must be such that a reasonable person would conclude that their only practical choice is to enter into the contract. The courts take a strict view on illegitimate threats and aim to prevent parties from benefiting from their wrongful conduct.
Public Policy Considerations:
The principle of duress is rooted in public policy considerations. Contract law seeks to uphold the principles of freedom of contract and the voluntary nature of agreements. Duress undermines these principles by allowing one party to force another into a contract against their will. Therefore, the law intervenes to protect the integrity of contractual relationships and maintain fairness and justice.
By recognizing duress as a ground for rescission, English contract law provides an avenue for parties to escape the consequences of contracts entered into under oppressive or wrongful circumstances.
Conclusion:
The principle of duress is a vital concept in English Contract law. It protects individuals and businesses from being coerced into contracts against their free will. Economic duress and undue influence are two related concepts that also play a significant role in contract law. By understanding these principles and seeking legal advice when faced with such situations, individuals can safeguard their rights and ensure fair contractual relationships.
In cases of duress, the court examines various factors to determine if a threat is illegitimate. While there is no exhaustive list, the following factors are typically considered:
Nature and Gravity of the Threat: The court assesses the nature and seriousness of the threat made by the party exerting pressure. Physical harm, blackmail, economic ruin, or damage to reputation are examples of threats that are more likely to be considered illegitimate. The more severe or harmful the threat, the more likely it is to be deemed illegitimate.
Timing and Persistence of the Threat: The court examines the timing and persistence of the threat. If the threat is immediate, imminent, or ongoing, it may suggest illegitimacy. A threat that is persistent, relentless, or continues throughout the negotiation process can be indicative of duress.
Lack of Reasonable Alternative: The court considers whether the victim had any reasonable alternative but to agree to the contract. If the victim had no viable options or felt compelled to accept the terms due to the threat, it strengthens the case for duress. The absence of a realistic choice can indicate that the threat was illegitimate.
Independent Advice: The court evaluates whether the victim had access to independent legal or professional advice at the time of entering into the contract. If the victim had the opportunity to seek guidance and the advice would have revealed the unfairness of the situation, it may support the claim of duress. The lack of independent advice can be a factor indicating the presence of illegitimate pressure.
Vulnerability of the Victim: The court takes into account the vulnerability of the victim. Factors such as age, mental or physical health, lack of experience, or financial distress can contribute to the vulnerability of a party. Exploiting the weaknesses or vulnerabilities of the victim to exert pressure may indicate illegitimacy.
Relationship between the Parties: The court considers the relationship between the parties involved. If there is a pre-existing relationship of trust and confidence, such as a fiduciary relationship, family relationship, or unequal bargaining power, it may be easier to establish that the threat was illegitimate. Certain relationships create a higher duty of care and impose greater restrictions on exerting pressure.
Public Policy Considerations: The court also takes into account public policy considerations. It seeks to uphold the principles of fairness, justice, and the integrity of contractual relationships. If allowing the contract to stand would be contrary to public policy, it may influence the determination of illegitimacy.
It's important to note that each case is assessed on its individual merits, and the court evaluates the specific circumstances and evidence presented before making a decision on the legitimacy of a threat in a duress claim.
Overall, the court aims to determine whether the threat exerted was wrongful, oppressive, and deprived the victim of their free will, thus rendering the contract voidable due to duress.