IBL Lecture 8 - Autumn 2009

Armstrongallegedthatbartonhadenteredintothe

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: hreat of violence to a person, or to someone with whom she or he is associated. Must satisfy three tests: Duress must have prevented the parties from negotiating on equal terms; Duress must have interfered with the coerced party’s exercise of free will; and Because of duress the coerced party’s mind did not go to the transaction. It is not necessary to show that the threats were either the only of the main reason for the promisor entering the contract (Barton v Armstrong (1974) 3 ALR 355). The defendant must prove that the duress did not exist. Barton v Armstrong (1974) 3 ALR 355 Barton Facts: Facts: Barton brought proceedings to have contracts between Armstrong and himself set aside for duress. Barton alleged and the court accepted that Armstrong had threatened his life and the safety of his family. Armstrong alleged that Barton had entered into the contracts for business reasons. Held: The Privy Council decided that it was for the coercive party to show that the duress was not a contributing cause to the other party’s decision to contract. Armstrong could not show this. Thecourt also indicated t...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online