IBL Lecture 8 - Autumn 2009

Helicoptercharterssubsequentlyrefusedtopaythe4300for

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: hat the coercion did not have to be the main reason for entering into the contract, it only had to be a contributing cause. Duress of goods Duress of goods occurs where one party unlawfully seizes, detains, damages or destroys another’s goods or threatens to do so (Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 298). For example, a contract entered into under threat of having one’s house burnt down or one’s valuable painting slashed may be voidable. Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 298 (1991) Facts: Facts: HC contracted with HP to paint one of its helicopters. The helicopter had to be returned twice for rectification work and on the final time HP asked HC to sign a document absolving HP from any further liability and acknowledging that HP owed then $4,300. Hawker’s knew that HC needed the helicopter urgently and Helicopter’s manager believed that the only way to get the helicopter that day was to sign the document. Helicopter Charters subsequently refused to pay the $4,300 for duress. Held: The court finds for Helicopter Charters on the basis of Hawker’s implie...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/21/2012 for the course LAW 101 taught by Professor Hicks during the Three '12 term at University of Technology, Sydney.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online