What are the differences between “duress” and “undue influence”?

What are the differences between “duress” and “undue influence”?

What are the differences between “duress” and “undue influence”?

Law relating to defective contracts tainted by coercion or undue influence was established in order to protect those who enter into a contract, which involves a high degree of risk and which was introduced in unfavorable conditions. English law generally does not care about a fair deal, but it recognizes that it must intervene in some circumstances. Cases involving coercion and undue influence is exceptional. It is true that the law in this area is not clear, but in order to discuss its effectiveness must be weighed as its advantages and disadvantages. Then he will have the opportunity to decide whether this area of law is chaotic and not vague.

In short, at common law, the doctrine of coercion and undue influence allow the contract to be terminated if one party has put an unfair and undue pressure on others in the negotiations leading to the contract. Thus, inequality negotiations between the contracting parties, which operate over the dominant party, is the foundation on which the law may allow the weaker party to cancel this contract.

Coercive pressure to perform illegal acts. In the universe Tankships B. ITWF, [1] Lord Scarman said that to establish that the abuse occurred, it was necessary to establish two things. Firstly, that the victim was subjected to pressure, which was illegal, and secondly, that the pressure exerted on the victim was so great that it led to the coercion of his will. If both of these facts are present, the doctrine of coercion will make the contract voidable. There are different categories of duress. Forcing a person cases have little value, since the number of cases in this area has always been enough. Forcing the property recognizes that the threat of seizure of another's property or injury to justify the claim of coercion and result in a subsequent contract, set aside. More recently, the emergence of new and far more significant doctrine of economic duress has occurred. Thanks to relatively recent development in English law, the doctrine is still evolving. In this regard, it contributes to the chaotic nature of this area of law.

Kerr / in the case of Occidental countries Investment Corporation V Skibs / S Avanti, Sibeon and Sibotre [2] first considered the idea of economic coercion. General situation of increasing ability to act on economic duress, where one party threatens to break the contract if the contract is reviewed, and others agree, rather than face the disastrous consequences of the breach. In this area is difficult, because companies that are engaged with each other on a regular basis, often voluntarily agree to change the terms of the contract. Economic doctrine of coercion threatens them. Nevertheless, the need for a clear and recognized the doctrine in English law was called for due to changes in legislation relating to the consideration, in particular, changes relating to commercial ...