University of Queensland Law of Contract B



Download 265.67 Kb.
Page4/16
Date31.01.2017
Size265.67 Kb.
#13148
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16

Duress to Goods


  • Can recover goods as well as money paid to prevent unlawful seizure or to obtain release (in restitution): Astley v Reynolds.

  • Can be used to avoid contract (Siboen overruling Skeate); threat need not be express, reasonable belief enough: Hawker Pacific.

  • Needs to be a cause.

Economic Duress


  • Two situations:

    • 1) P has made payment under ED in absence of contract or contract without consideration (unjust enrichment)

    • 2) Contractual modification

Payments


  • Smith v William Charlick – recognized possibility but was no illegitimate pressure.

  • Cf White Rose Flour Milling – threatened to not supply in breach of contract- ED.

  • TA Sundell v Yannoulatos – Money can be recovered.

Contractual modification


  • Siboen & Sibotre – economic duress can be used to rescind, not just recover payments. Same result in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long.

When is there economic duress/commercial pressure?


  • Crescendo per McHugh J:

    • 1) Did pressure applied induce victim to enter contract or modify existing one?

    • 2) Did pressure go beyond what law prepared to countenance as legitimate?

  • Does pressure have to be unlawful? Or is illegitimate pressure wider?

  • Threatening to breach contract is unlawful (Furphy v Nixon) but may not be if done in good faith (Mitchell per Keane JA).

  • Kirby P in Equiticorp – scrap duress and deal with under other doctrines.

  • Karam – NSWCA limited duress to threatened or actual unlawful conduct.

  • Woodside – Murphy J limited it to conduct unlawful/wrongful according to some external legal standard. McLure P (Newnes JA agreeing) – if actual/threatened unlawful conduct, prima facie illegitimate. If lawful conduct, maybe illegitimate if no reasonable/justifiable connection between pressure applied and demand. HC decided on other grounds.

  • Mitchell v Pacific Dawn – Keane JA – duress and unconscionable conduct are distinct doctrines.

Protest


  • McHugh JA in Crescendo – non-definitive factor. Windeyer J in Mason v NSW – relevant to whether acted freely/under compulsion; non-conclusive factor.

Commercial Pressure


  • Siboen & Sibotre (1976)asked to reduce charter cost; charter market particularly bad. Mere commercial pressure.

  • Atlas v Kafco (1989)A underquoted price. Asked for more or wouldn’t deliver. Christmas time. Found economic duress.

  • Reconciling them?

    • Timing – courts have become more willing to find ED.

    • Charter market’s bad state may have been an important factor.

    • In Siboen they asked for less. In Atlas they asked for more; owner had to pay because was 80% of business.

Causal Link


  • McHugh JA in Crescendo cited Barton and said a cause.

  • Burchett J (FI) in News v Aust Rugby Football League cited Lord Goff in Evia Luck and said significant cause (preferable).

Remedies

Rescission


  • Standard. But, if pressure subsequently lifted and contract affirmed, not available (Atlantic Baron).

  • Payments under contract recoverable, otherwise - restitution.

Restitution


  • Not available until after the contract has been rescinded: Evia Luck.

Damages


  • Universe Tankships – preferable view is Lord Diplock- damages not available unless pressure is also a tort.

  • ACL s 20(1) – unconscionable conduct within meaning of common law.

  • ACL s 50- physical force/undue harassment/coercion with supply/payment of goods/services or land interest.

  • Excite Mobile – fell under both provisions.

Undue Influence

What is it?


  • Never been defined (Allcard v Skinner per Lindley LJ). If defined, people will avoid it (Chesterfield v Jannsen per Lord Hardwick).

  • Allcard per Lindley LJ: “some unfair and improper conduct, some coercion from outside, some overreaching, some form of cheating and generally, though not always, some personal advantage obtained by a donee placed in some close and confidential relation to the donor.

  • Johnson v Buttress per Dixon J: “unconscientious use of any special capacity or opportunity that may exist or arise of affecting the alienor’s will or freedom of judgment in reference to such a matter.

  • Influence itself is not per se objectionable: Allcard per Kekewich J.

  • Balance between autonomy and protection by court (see Kakavas). Court won’t help you get out of a bad bargain.

  • But not necessary to show loss of autonomy: Tufton v Sperni.

Categories


  • See Lord Nicholls in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2).

  • Johnson per Latham CJ:

    • 1) Actual undue influence

    • 2) Presumed undue influence (then have to rebut)


Download 265.67 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page