100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 9 pages.
could also be considered as illegitimate pressure. Next, Inner Sense managed to refuse the terms anddid not receive independent legal advice. Considering the factors that they had no alternative choicesand only agreed to the increase costs after objecting to it and only agreed after they had no choice, thecourt could state that there is economic duress.However, in this case, since they only raised the issue after the renovation was complete, by virtue ofNorth Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd (1979), the court might hold that eventhough in principle there was economic duress, because Inner Sense had not taken steps soon enoughto avoid the changes to the contract, they had lost their right to sue for economic duress.The issue in this is whether it is economicduress. Economic duress is putting economic pressure on toone party so that he party will oblige. Moreover, it was done to take advantage and not done in goodfaith. Can argue that it is difficult to find an alternative hence it is legitimate pressure. Inner senserefused at first hence they protested at first to the new term, in the end they had no choice but to signthe deed under seal. Hence, consideration is not needed and the contract might still be valid. However,if inner sense did not get legal advice, the court might tsay the transaction is not valid as inner sensemight not know the significance of the seal and deed. Krafty can argue and say that it might not bepossible that they signed it without knowing of legal advice. -Inner sense must have protested-They are cornered and have no choice but to comply. But they should have taken legal advice atthat point. But if there was no legal advice and he signed the deed under seal, inner sense can raisethe issue that this is a variation in contract and krafty quickly asked them to sign the document,knowing that inner sense had no legal advice.-For Economic Duress seeking legal advice is a very important factor.
4.Ms Soh Wei Tee is a teacher in a school. She signs a contract with Sure Lose (Weight) Gym underwhich she gets to use the gym facilities for two years, without any restriction as to the number ofvisits. The gym has the latest state of the art facilities. In addition Ms Soh gets various otherprivileges. She pays $3000 for this package deal. After some time, she finds it very hard to go tothe gym after work and so wants to cancel the contract and get a pro-rated refund. The contractexpressly states that there shall be no refunds unless the gym has breached any of its obligations.Ms Soh did not read this and the gym is refusing a refund because it has not breached any of itsobligations. Is the gym right considering both the legal and business angle?The issue here is whether there is a mistake made or whether there the expressed terms were valid.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 9 pages?
Soo, Singapore company, statutory board, Chee Ter Bak, Soo Yu