DURESS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE

SUBMITTED BY:
UPASHANA ROY
VU22LAWS0200039
BBA LLB (hons)
SEMESTER-2
UNDER THE ESTEEMED GUIDANCE OF
ASTLE SINGH

SCHOOL OF LAW
GITAM (deemed to be university)
VISHAKAPATNAM
(2022-2027)

pg. 1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to convey my heartfelt gratitude to ASTLE SINGH, Assistant Professor in GITAM
school of law. He is also my mentor and he has guided me by giving his valuable suggestions
and ideas in completion of this project titled as DURESS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE. He has
given his valuable time by helping in every step of completing this project. He has motivated me
all the time when I was not able to go further in the project.

I would also like to thank all the people who helped me in providing information for this project.
I would thank GITAM UNIVERSITY for giving me this opportunity to do project which helped
me a lot in knowing many interesting facts.

pg. 2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the assignment titled DURESS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE has been done
by me and submitted to GITAM SCHOOL OF LAW under the guidance of ASTLE SINGH,
Assistant Professor. I have done this assignment at the best of my knowledge and I have citied
points from which I am inspired and taken from. This project is submitted for the partial
fulfilments of the requirements in attaining Bachelor’s in law.

pg. 3
 INDEX
Sno. content Pg no.
01 Abstract 04
02 Introduction 05
03 Duress 06-12
04 Undue influence 13-17
05 Conclusion 18
06 Bibliography 19

pg. 4
 ABSTRACT

The rule of opportunity of contract has been a cardinal highlight of the English contract law from
time immemorial. This rule, which is immovably interwoven with the convention of party
independence in private worldwide law, underscores the require for parties entering into
commercial contracts to openly concur to the terms of their contract. Regularly, where it is built
up that the assent of one of the parties to a contract was gotten by a few conducts which the law
considers unconscionable, such as the utilize of viciousness, danger, impelling or undue weight,
such a contact may be set aside by the courts at the occurrence of the guiltless party either on the
ground of pressure or undue impact. These two related, but unmistakable, teachings of the
English contract law, which are apparently as antiquated as the law of contract itself, have
customarily played the part of securing the holiness of commercial exchanges by guaranteeing
that contracts secured by any unconscionable conduct don't stand. In any case, there has been
much legal and scholastic talk about, in later years, about the got to consolidate the two tenets
with other tenets that developed much afterward, such as the convention of disparity of
bargaining power, in arrange to have one umbrella tenet of unconscionability that would control
all sorts of unjustifiable conduct in commercial dealings. The main objective of this paper is to
study theories of coercion and undue influence, in order to determine whether they constitute an
appropriate law against unreasonable contracts. Developing this study, the literature will
progress in the following way. First, the historical development of the two doctrines will be
examined. Second, the meaning and context in which the two principles apply will be explored.
This will involve analysing the efforts of the English courts to clarify the requirements of the two
principles and also to broaden the category of unauthorized conduct that means coercion or
undue influence. Third, the legal consequences of successfully defending these doctrines will be
considered. Finally, an answer to the interesting question of whether these two doctrines together
constitute an appropriate law against absurd contracts will be provided. 

KEYWORDS: - violence, threat, ascendancy, relation.

pg. 5
 INTRODUCTION

The theories of coercion and undue influence. Both of these doctrines provide a means for an
individual to avoid a contract that has already been entered into. These doctrines apply when
individuals are coerced or coerced into a contract by threats, unfair pressure, or unreasonable
influence. The rationale for these theories is quite clear, that is, they prevent one party from
taking unfair advantage of another. The effect of these doctrines on the contract is that it renders
the contract null and void at the request of the aggrieved party. However, a party's interest in a
contract to be bound only by a freely and voluntarily performed obligation may conflict with the
legitimate expectations of the other contracting party, namely the performance of the other party.
promised will now be fulfilled. Such expectations would not be created if the second party had
reason to believe that the undertaking was not freely given. Therefore, attributing the interests of
the parties to a contract requires the introduction of a legal obligation to control the scope of the
exception of “consent to defect”. In general, a breach of one party's freedom of contract will only
result in both systems of contract law when some sort of liability on the other is established. If an
agreement can be terminated solely on the ground that one party is not free to decide, this will
seriously affect the security of legal relations. 

pg. 6
 DURESS

Duress is defined as a type of threat, violence or other action used to force someone to do
something against their will. In the context of contract law, this refers to when one party uses
force to force the other to enter into a contract they do not want or when the terms of the contract
are not in their favour. In general, duress applies only where the innocent party can successfully
prove that he was coerced into entering into a contract by reason of actual violence against his
person or against a loved one or relationship. threats of violence. However, since it is generally
accepted that any contract or offer is made under some form of pressure or intimidation, the rule
is that the threat posed by the offending party must be sufficient to constitute coercion. In this
regard, examination courts have consistently applied as to whether the threat is unlawful or
unlawful, although the courts have also recognized that certain types of threats are legitimate.
may lead to coercion.  The doctrine of coercion gradually evolved to include two other forms -
coercion for gain and economic coercion. With regard to property coercion, the traditional view
holds that only "fear that property may be appropriated or harmed does not deprive anyone of
free will. Indeed, possession. unlawfully one party's property in a contract does not constitute
non-coercion. However, this view has now been dismissed as the doctrine of coercion for good
purposes is now well established under British law.

The doctrine of duress has always been recognised in the English common law, here are some of
the main examples of the forms it may come in:

Duress by the threat of violence – Barton v Armstrong

Duress by threat of imprisonment – Williams v Bayley
Duress by creating a threatening environment – Antonia v Antonia
Duress by threat to damage property – Dimskal Shipping Co SA v International Transport
Workers’ Federation, The Evia Luck
Duress by economic pressure – D & C Builders v Rees

pg. 7
1

PHYSICAL DURESS

If a party can prove that they were coerced into entering into a contract by threat of violence, the
contract will be void. There are two main conditions of duress by threat of violence:

 The nature of the threat must be sufficient to constitute a constraint.

 The effect of the threat must be to force the plaintiff to enter into a contract.

NATURE OF THE THREAT

The threat made must be of sufficient nature to constitute duress. Courts typically use this as an
indicator of whether a threat is illegal. There is a presumption that if intimidation is illegal, it
constitutes a sufficient threat. The offense in question must be a criminal act, not a tort. The case
of Barton v. Armstrong [1976] AC 104 is relevant in this respect. In this case, the death threat
was an offense of sufficient nature. 

EFFECT OF THREAT

In determining the effectiveness of intimidation, a distinction must be made as to whether there

is a threat leading to the plaintiff entering into the contract voluntarily or whether the plaintiff
entered into the contract involuntarily. The first case suggests that the plaintiff may have another
option to enter into the contract and the plaintiff may have no other choice, so it is not sufficient
as coercion.

The criminal case of Northern Ireland v. Lynch [1975] AC 653 provides a strong explanation for
this. The judge acknowledged that even in extreme situations there is usually always a choice,
but realistically he must have only one choice. 

ECONOMIC DURESS

Economic duress refers to threats to an individual's economic interests. This was suggested only
as a possible basis for enforcement in the case of Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation
v Skibs A/S Avanti, The Siboen and the Sibotre [1976]. A typical scenario for such coercion is:

1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_plc_v_Etridge_(No_2)#:~:text=Royal%20Bank%20of
%20Scotland%20plc%20v%20Etridge%20(No%202)%20%5B,vitiate%20consent%20to%20a%20contract

pg. 8
Party A and Party B negotiate a contract

Party B threatens breach of contract if contract is not renegotiated

Party A chooses to renegotiate the contract in favour of Party B.

In this situation, a breach by Party B could have many undesirable consequences for Party A.
The contract may be a subcontract and if Party B breaches the contract, Party A will be liable for
damages to another party.

This principle requires a delicate balance with the commercial needs of society. Legitimate
economic pressure may be perceived as a valid bargaining tool, and courts risk going too far in
the economic pressure spectrum. 

ESSENTIALS OF DURESS

Requirements for using duress as a defence in court vary by state. Here are the general
requirements you need:

 Parties are at risk of serious bodily harm or death. The threat to the victim must be
constant. For example, pointing a gun at someone's head is considered a qualifying threat.
 The parties assume that the perpetrator will carry out the threat. A fear of a threat is
justified if a reasonable person is likely to experience the same level of fear when faced
with the same threat.
 There is no way to escape safely without cheating. Coercion cannot be used as a defence
against committing wrongdoing if the court is satisfied that the plaintiff had an
opportunity to escape unscathed without committing wrongdoing. 

pg. 9
 CASE LAW

1. BARTON V ARMSTRONG
FACT
The parties were shareholders of the company. The complainants alleged that they were
compelled to agree to the purchase of the respondent's shares in the company. He alleged
that the defendants threatened to kill him. The trial judge found that the defendants made
these threats. However, he also found that the complainant's real motivation for entering
into the contract was a business need, not a threat. Plaintiff appealed.
ISSUE
Did the complainant have to prove that the contract was forcibly voided by intimidation?
DECISION
The Privy Council upheld the complaint. The complainant did not have to show that he
would not have entered into the contract had it not been for the threat. It was enough for
the threat to affect his sanity or "contribute" to his decisions. According to these facts,
this was the case and the contract was void. 

2. SKEAT V BEALE

FACT

The tenant owed money to the landlord. He took possession of the borrower's belongings
and threatened to sell them immediately if the borrower did not agree to immediate
payment of the outstanding amount. The tenant has agreed to the terms of the refund. He
then broke his contract by not paying the overdue rent and the landlord filed a lawsuit to
recover the unpaid money.
The borrower then tried to cancel the contract on the grounds of coercion. In her defence,
the lessee argued that the foreclosure was unjustified because she was only responsible
for a small amount. The landlord had threatened to sell the property immediately if no
agreement was reached, so she agreed to the terms of the deal. 
ISSUES
Can repayment agreements be cancelled under duress

pg. 10
 DECISION 2
The court concluded that threats did not constitute coercion because they were directed
against property. The mere application of duress to the goods is not sufficient to void the
contract. Thus, the promise given in exchange for the illegally confiscated goods turned
out to be valid. 
3. NORTH OCEAN SHIPPING V HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION
FACTS

The Defendant agreed to build a vessel for the Plaintiff at a specified price in US dollars.
After the contract was signed, the US Dollar was devalued by 10%. Defendants threatened
not to terminate unless plaintiff paid an additional 10% on top of the contract price. Since
the plaintiff had drawn up a valuable charter, he agreed to pay the additional amount and did
so without objection. Eight months after the delivery of the ship, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit
seeking the return of the additional sums paid.

DECISION

Plaintiffs, however, were able to challenge the contract by compulsion because they had
accepted the contract and postponed asserting their claims for so long that they lost the right
to withdraw. 

4. R V HM ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR ENGLAND AND WALES

FACT:
The defendant was a New Zealander and a former member of the SAS. In 1992, one of
his commanders wrote a book, including a chapter on the personal experiences of his
SAS members involved in the Iraq War, including descriptions of the defendants. The
military then introduced non-disclosure agreements that had to be signed by military
personnel to keep SAS operations secret. In 1997, the defendant was told to sign a non-
disclosure agreement prohibiting him from publicly describing his military experience
with the SAS. He was told he could not seek legal advice before signing the contract. If
he refuses to sign, he will return to RTU. RTU is a unit that is usually used for

2
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/northern-ireland-v-lynch.php
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/duress-cases.php

pg. 11
 punishment and offers a lower wage rate. A-G filed suit against the defendants for
breach of confidentiality agreements. Defendants allege coercion and undue influence.

ISSUE
Whether the defendant was improperly influenced or coerced into signing the contract.

DECISION
Defendant's appeal was dismissed. In order to find coercion, we needed pressure
equivalent to coercion against the will of the victim and the illegality of the pressure. In
principle, this was illegal. The RTU threat was legitimate and a legitimate function of the
military. In addition, defendants had a signature option. Although the option to demote
to RTU was the motive for signing, it was not unlawful force or pressure, nor was it
directing him to do so. It was justified because it was to protect legitimate concerns
about the disclosure of confidential military combat missions.

5. MASKELL V HORNER
FACTS
The defendant demanded money from the plaintiff in the form of "tolls" for the stalls.
Defendants had no legal basis for claiming this money. The defendant threatened to
confiscate and sell his shares if the plaintiff did not pay. The plaintiff paid the toll for a
considerable period of time and then sued for money paid or received under duress.
DECISIONS
Plaintiffs had the right to recover amounts paid under the Restitution Act. This decision
is seen by some as evidence that the Commodity Enforcement Act is inconsistent with
contract law and that the position in contract law should be amended. 

pg. 12
 UNDUE INFLUENCE

"Influence" can be described as the superiority of one person over another. "Inappropriate
Influence" means that the act of the person affected is not in the full sense of his own free or
voluntary action, so that the Ascendancy is exercised for his own benefit or for the benefit of
others. to abuse. Simply put, undue influence is the use of a dominant position by one person
over another. This imbalance of power between the contracting parties can affect the consent of
the ineffective party, this imbalance of power prevents the other party from exercising free or
independent will and the contract is further disabled by selecting. 

Undue Influence as defined under section 16(1) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as:

“A contract is said to be induced by ‘undue influence’ where the relations subsisting between the
parties are such that one of the parties is in the position to dominate the will of the other and uses
that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.”

Essentials of undue influence:

 There is an existing relationship between the contracting parties.

 One party controls the will of the other party.
 Those in control of the will gain an unfair advantage over others.

These are the basic elements that must be in place to fulfil contracts caused by undue influence.

The Allcard v. Skinner decision split the undue influence case into two parts. namely, when
charges are brought against the recipient and when the opportunities afforded to a person through
obligations are abused. The court in the above case further elaborated on the proportionality of
its judgment, stating, "In the former case, no one is permitted to withhold, and should not later
receive, profits derived from fraudulent or unlawful activities. Remedies are granted based on the
principle that the abuse of influence between the parties can be prevented by cutting off the
relationship between the parties in cases based on public order and morals."

It has two conditions that a person seeking compensation must prove.

pg. 13
  That the relationship between the parties is such that one can influence the decisions and
will of the other.3
 Abuse of one's position by the recipient or defendant to enrich himself. 

All instances of improper influence fall mainly into the following categories:

Relationship - Cases falling into this category do not require that the parties are related by
blood, marriage, or adoption, but it is essential that one party is of higher status and able to
do so. opponent's will. It is not limited to strict trust relationships, but applies to all types of
relationships. However, the mere existence of such a relationship cannot prove undue
influence, but the presence of a dominant position.

Dominant Position - This category of undue influence considers the circumstances under
which the contract was entered into and the relationship between them. The existence of a
dominant position and its exploitation is essential for action. Once a dominant position has
been established, use is presumed to have been in the particular case, unless there is an
objection to the contrary.

Unfair Advantage – In the case of Ganesh Narayan Nagarkar v. Vishnu Ramchandra Saraf,
the court held that ``an unfair advantage is an advantage or gain obtained by unfair or unjust
means''. Occurs when a deal favors a person who enjoys influence and is proven unfair to
others.

Actual and apparent authority – This type of influence includes actual authority such as
police officers or employers who use their advantage for personal gain. A guise of authority
pretends to be real authority when it does not actually exist.

Trust relationship - This type of relationship is based solely on the existence of mutual trust
between the parties. That is, one party naturally trusts the other, and as that trust grows over
time, one begins to influence the other. This type of relationship is typically doctor-patient,
attorney-client, parent-child, teacher-student, beneficiary of a trust (Cestui que Trust), etc.
Umadat Pande The Guru influenced his disciples to accept his property as a gift by promising
to secure their profits in the next world. Disabled the donation because it is not a thing.

3
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ipsaloquitur.com/equity/cases/allcard-v-skinner/%3famp

pg. 14
 Parents and Children – Parents want their children to have all their needs met and act under
supervision, which has a unique impact on children from infancy through life. Therefore, if
the interest is transferred to the parent or third party at the child's expense, this is considered
jealousy on the part of the parent by an impartial court. Therefore, in any case, the age of the
child is always taken into account to determine the degree of parental influence. In
Lancashire Loans Ltd v. Black, it was found that a girl was put under improper influence
when she entered into a money loan agreement as guarantor for her mother just before her
marriage.

Disorders of mental capacity – established law of Inder Singh v. Dayal Singh [7]. But a
mere desperate state of mind does not constitute undue influence until the defendant uses the
opportunity to his advantage. Similarly, inciting a plaintiff to enter into a contract that has
just come of age due to a plaintiff's inexperience constitutes undue influence in this category. 

TYPES OF UNDUE INFLUENCE

pg. 15
Sir Browne-Wilkinson, in Barclays Bank Plc v. O'Brien [1994] 1 AC 180, identified two
different classes of undue influence.

 Actual undue influence
 presumed undue influence. It can be categorized as follows:

Protected relationships – predetermined assumptions about relationships that lead to suspicion of

influence

Other - Relationships whose impact can be estimated, but which do not occur automatically  

A brief overview of the importance of the different kinds of burdens of proof is examined in
more detail.  

For a category “2a” protected relationship, the applicant does not have to prove that the
relationship caused the alleged impact, but the relationship has already proven this. Therefore,
plaintiffs need only show that this party took advantage of the nature of this relationship.

In Category 2b, applicants are only required to demonstrate that the relationship is one that has
generated influence. The court will then assess whether the action amounted to undue influence.

Category 1 does not require applicants to prove the existence of a special relationship. Their
burden of proof is to show that their free will to enter into a particular contract has been
overcome, but this is not easy to prove. This is the same standard as the coercion claim. 

Actual Undue Influence

This kind of undue influence can be viewed as another expression of coercion because it is
conceptually similar. Actual undue influence has been described as acts of undue pressure or
coercion, such as unlawful threats, which appear to parallel coercion. The burden of proof in the
case of claims of undue influence must show that undue influence overcomes their free will. This
is similar to the need criterion, but of course much easier to demonstrate if needed. It's a very
high threshold to prove that undue influence left the plaintiff with no choice. 

CIBC Mortgages plc v. Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200 does not require the contract to be voided because
undue influence is clearly unfavourable to the applicant, but if enforcement is established, the
contract is clearly unfavourable. must be.

pg. 16
Featured cases:

CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200

In this case, Pitt wanted to buy the stock. To fund this purchase, he pressured his wife into taking
out his second mortgage on his family home. The purpose of the loan application was to
purchase a vacation home and pay off the existing mortgage. Her husband used the money to buy
shares. Wives tried to exert undue influence over their husbands when banks tried to ensure their
safety under mortgages.

It was held that evidence of clear discrimination was not required if actual undue influence was
established. Claims may therefore arise for actual improper effects. Unfortunately, due to other
issues related to notifying banks, this claim has been dismissed, but the important principle that
no obvious prejudice is required for any alleged improper influence still applies. 

PRESUMED UNDUE INFLUENCE

Daniel v Drew [2005] EWCA Civ 507 upheld the court's approach to both categories of alleged
undue influence. As noted above, the plaintiff need not show that undue influence left him no
choice, and that he did not give him the right to make a deal so that the transaction was not an
exercise of his independent free will. Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge clarifies how to deal
with alleged undue influence. Did. Although the relationship between the parties gave rise to
presumptions of influence, there was no undue influence, which had to be proven by the
plaintiff. 

CONCLUSION

pg. 17
This paper has attempted to examine the related but distinct doctrines of duress and undue
influence, particularly as to whether they together constitute a proper law against unethical
contracts. The paper talks about duress and its types What is unacceptable is unacceptable
Behaviour that the law classifies as coercion or undue influence is far more prevalent today than
it was in the 19th century. Overall, it is argued that coercion and undue influence together
constitute a proper law against improper contracts. Usually, an order to cancel an unjust
contract. 

pg. 18
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 (PDF) Overview of the Doctrines of Duress, Undue Influence and Unconscionable Contracts
under English Law (researchgate.net)

 Duress AND Undue Influence - QUESTION ON DURESS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE What are the
differences between - Studocu

 Duress and Undue Influence in Contract Validity | Free Essay Example (studycorgi.com)

 DURESS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE | The Lawyers & Jurists (lawyersnjurists.com)

pg. 19
pg. 20
pg. 21