28:
251:
advice, persuasion, influence, inducement, representation, commercial pressure – the law had come to select some which it will not accept as a reason for voluntary action: fraud, abuse of relation of confidence, undue influence, duress or coercion. In this the law, under the influence of equity, has developed from the old common law conception of duress – threat to life and limb – and it has arrived at the modern generalisation expressed by Holmes J – 'subjected to an improper motive for action' (
250:
involves consideration of what the law regards as voluntary or its opposite ... Absence of choice ... does not negate consent in law; for this the pressure must be one of a kind which the law does not regard as legitimate. Thus, out of the various means by which consent may be obtained –
231:
advised that Barton could avoid the contract for being under duress, and it did not matter that he may have agreed to the deal anyway. Lord Cross, Lord
Kilbrandon and Sir Garfield Barwick held that physical duress does not need to be the main reason, it must merely be one reason amongst others for
261:
The three tests for physical duress … are to, first, "show that some illegitimate means of persuasion was used", and second, that "the illegitimate means used was a reason (not the reason, nor the predominant reason nor the clinching reason)", and third that his evidence is "honest and accepted".
403:
204:
Alexander Barton was the managing director of a company, Landmark
Corporation Ltd., whose main business was property development, its projects passing through 'Paradise Waters (Sales) Pty Ltd'. Barton executed a deed whereby the company would pay $ 140,000 to
377:
390:
364:
462:
629:
416:
236:
reason for Barton's executing the deed he is entitled to relief even though he might well have entered into the contract if
Armstrong had uttered no threats to induce him to do so".
196:
The Privy
Council held that a person who agrees to a contract under physical duress may avoid the contract, even if the duress was not the main reason for agreeing to the bargain.
242:
and Lord Simon, dissenting jointly, held that while in substantial agreement on the law, there was no duress on the facts, but the threats needed to be at least
341:
595:
522:
475:
451:
319:
253:
530:
330:
619:
206:
232:
entering an agreement. Lord Cross said the same rule should apply for duress as in misrepresentation, "that if
Armstrong's threats were
427:
291:
562:
514:
228:
178:
38:
131:
123:
614:
127:
624:
489:
644:
634:
108:
135:
284:
500:
639:
485:
209:, a NSW state politician, and buy his shares for $ 180,000. Armstrong was the chairman of the board.
27:
506:
277:
186:
219:
said Barton failed to discharge the onus that the threat had caused him to make the contract.
353:
182:
190:
8:
582:
554:
216:
73:
440:
239:
139:
366:
Universe
Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation
181:
decision heard on appeal from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, relating to
578:
212:
97:
49:
Alexander Barton, Appellant v. Alexander Ewan
Armstrong and Others, Respondents
608:
534:(1840) 11 AD & E 983 held unlawful detention of goods is not duress
630:
Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Australia
215:
found
Armstrong had indeed threatened to have Barton killed. But the
405:
Dimskal
Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers' Federation
379:
B&S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd
269:
164:
154:
Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Kilbrandon and Sir Garfield Barwick
246:
reason for entering the contract. They held the case
392:
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpact Banking Corp
606:
464:Mutual Finance Ltd v John Wetton & Sons Ltd
285:
429:R v Attorney General for England and Wales
292:
278:
515:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
229:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
607:
417:Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co
128:Lord Simon of Glaisdale
273:
558:
132:Lord Cross of Chelsea
77:
13:
620:English unconscionability case law
14:
656:
599:, 145 Mass. 153, 13 NE 596 (1887)
544:
490:unconscionability in English law
299:
185:and pertinent to case law under
26:
588:
568:
140:Sir Garfield Barwick
1:
538:
518:350 F.2d 445 (C.A. D.C. 1965)
615:Australian contract case law
7:
561:104 (5 December 1973),
501:Crimes Act 1900, Section 61
265:
10:
661:
565: (on appeal from NSW).
58:December 5, 1973
486:English unjust enrichment
483:
472:
459:
448:
437:
424:
413:
400:
387:
374:
361:
350:
338:
327:
316:
305:
222:
163:
158:
150:
145:
119:
114:
104:
89:
84:
69:
54:
44:
34:
25:
20:
199:
625:English duress case law
507:Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy
645:1973 in Australian law
635:Lord Wilberforce cases
555:[1973] UKPC 27
259:
74:[1973] UKPC 27
354:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
248:
124:Lord Wilberforce
581:598 (30 June 1971),
191:English contract law
136:Lord Kilbrandon
217:NSW Court of Appeal
207:Alexander Armstrong
109:NSW Court of Appeal
575:Barton v Armstrong
551:Barton v Armstrong
342:The Atlantic Baron
309:Barton v Armstrong
174:Barton v Armstrong
94:Barton v Armstrong
21:Barton v Armstrong
596:Fairbanks v. Snow
585:(NSW, Australia).
523:Astley v Reynolds
496:
495:
476:Norreys v Zeffert
441:Williams v Bayley
170:
169:
652:
640:1973 in case law
600:
592:
586:
572:
566:
560:
548:
526:(1731) 2 Str 915
465:
452:Silsbee v Webber
430:
406:
393:
380:
367:
320:Astley v Reyonds
294:
287:
280:
271:
270:
254:Fairbanks v Snow
240:Lord Wilberforce
115:Court membership
79:
65:
63:
30:
18:
17:
660:
659:
655:
654:
653:
651:
650:
649:
605:
604:
603:
593:
589:
583:Court of Appeal
573:
569:
549:
545:
541:
497:
492:
479:
468:
463:
455:
444:
433:
428:
420:
409:
404:
396:
391:
383:
378:
370:
365:
357:
346:
334:
323:
312:
301:
298:
268:
225:
202:
61:
59:
12:
11:
5:
658:
648:
647:
642:
637:
632:
627:
622:
617:
602:
601:
587:
567:
542:
540:
537:
536:
535:
531:Skeate v Beale
527:
519:
511:
503:
494:
493:
484:
481:
480:
473:
470:
469:
460:
457:
456:
449:
446:
445:
438:
435:
434:
425:
422:
421:
414:
411:
410:
401:
398:
397:
388:
385:
384:
375:
372:
371:
362:
359:
358:
351:
348:
347:
339:
336:
335:
331:Skeate v Beale
328:
325:
324:
317:
314:
313:
306:
303:
302:
297:
296:
289:
282:
274:
267:
264:
224:
221:
201:
198:
168:
167:
161:
160:
156:
155:
152:
148:
147:
143:
142:
121:
120:Judges sitting
117:
116:
112:
111:
106:
102:
101:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
71:
67:
66:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
657:
646:
643:
641:
638:
636:
633:
631:
628:
626:
623:
621:
618:
616:
613:
612:
610:
598:
597:
591:
584:
580:
576:
571:
564:
563:Privy Council
556:
552:
547:
543:
533:
532:
528:
525:
524:
520:
517:
516:
512:
509:
508:
504:
502:
499:
498:
491:
487:
482:
478:
477:
471:
467:
466:
458:
454:
453:
447:
443:
442:
436:
432:
431:
423:
419:
418:
412:
408:
407:
399:
395:
394:
386:
382:
381:
373:
369:
368:
360:
356:
355:
349:
344:
343:
337:
333:
332:
326:
322:
321:
315:
311:
310:
304:
295:
290:
288:
283:
281:
276:
275:
272:
263:
258:
256:
255:
247:
245:
241:
237:
235:
230:
220:
218:
214:
210:
208:
197:
194:
192:
188:
184:
180:
179:Privy Council
176:
175:
166:
162:
157:
153:
149:
146:Case opinions
144:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
122:
118:
113:
110:
107:
105:Appealed from
103:
99:
96: 2
95:
92:
88:
83:
75:
72:
68:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
39:Privy Council
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
594:
590:
574:
570:
550:
546:
529:
521:
513:
505:
474:
461:
450:
439:
426:
415:
402:
389:
376:
363:
352:
340:
329:
318:
308:
307:
300:Duress cases
260:
252:
249:
243:
238:
233:
226:
211:
203:
195:
173:
172:
171:
93:
90:Prior action
85:Case history
48:
15:
151:Decision by
609:Categories
539:References
187:Australian
62:1973-12-05
100: 598
70:Citations
266:See also
213:Street J
159:Keywords
60: (
55:Decided
510:QB 326
345:QB 705
223:Advice
183:duress
165:Duress
579:NSWLR
553:
200:Facts
177:is a
98:NSWLR
35:Court
488:and
227:The
189:and
557:,
80:104
76:,
611::
577:2
559:AC
193:.
138:,
134:,
130:,
126:,
78:AC
293:e
286:t
279:v
257:)
244:a
234:a
64:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.svg)