228:
other return is simply one of the construction of the words of the contract in the circumstances of its making. Once it is recognised, as the Board considers it inevitably must be, that the expressed consideration includes a reference to the Paos' promise not to sell the shares before the 30th April 1974—-a promise to be performed in the future, though given in the past-—it is not possible to treat the Laus' promise of indemnity as independent of the Paos' antecedent promise, given at Lau's request, not to sell. The promise of indemnity was given because at the time of the main agreement the parties intended that Lau should confer upon the Paos the benefit of his protection against a fall in price. When the subsidiary agreement was cancelled, all were well aware that the Paos were still to have the benefit of his protection as consideration for the restriction on selling. It matters not whether the indemnity thus given be regarded as the best evidence of the benefit intended to be conferred in return for the promise not to sell, or as the positive bargain which fixes the benefit on the faith of which the promise was given—though where, as here, the subject is a written contract, the better analysis is probably that of the "positive bargain". Their
Lordships, therefore, accept the submission that the contract itself states a valid consideration for the promise of indemnity.
250:- observations with which the majority judgment appears to be in agreement. In determining whether there was a coercion of will such that there was no true consent, it is material to inquire whether the person alleged to have been coerced did or did not protest; whether, at the time he was allegedly coerced into making the contract, he did or did not have an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy; whether he was independently advised; and whether after entering the contract he took steps to avoid it. All these matters are, as was recognised in
39:
219:, because a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation to a third party can sometimes be good consideration. The question of whether consideration can be invalidated ‘if there has been a threat to repudiate a pre-existing contractual obligation or an unfair use of a dominating bargaining position’ was rejected because ‘where businessmen are negotiating at arm’s length it is unnecessary for the achievement of justice’. On the idea of past consideration, Lord Scarman said this:
179:, majority owned by Lau Yiu Long and his younger brother Benjamin (the defendants), wished to buy a 21-storey building then under construction called the "Wing On building", owned by Tsuen Wan Shing On Estate Co. Ltd. ("Shing On"), whose majority shareholder was Pao On and family (the claimants). Instead of simply selling the building for cash, Lau and Pao did a swap deal for the shares in their companies. Shing On would get 4.2m
195:). To ensure the share price of Fu Chip suffered no shock, Pao agreed not to sell 60% of the shares for at least one year. Also, in the event that the share price dropped in that year, Lau agreed to buy 60% of the shares back from Pao at $ 2.50. But then Pao realised, if the share price rose over $ 2.50 in the year, the price would stay fixed and he would not get the gains. So he demanded that instead of that, Lau would merely
260:
This was commercial pressure and no more, since the company really just wanted to avoid adverse publicity. For a general doctrine of economic duress, it must be shown ‘the victim’s consent to the contract was not a voluntary act on his part… provided always that the basis of such recognition is that
227:
past consideration into sufficient consideration in law to support a promise: as they have indicated, it is only the first of three necessary preconditions. As for the second of those preconditions, whether the act done at the request of the promisor raises an implication of promised remuneration or
199:
Pao if the share price fell below $ 2.50. Pao made clear that unless he got this "guarantee agreement", he would not complete the main contract. It was signed on 4 May 1973, but as it turned out the shares did slump in value. Pao tried to enforce the guarantee agreement. Lau argued the guarantee
402:
521:
376:
389:
363:
505:
461:
625:
236:
There must be present some factor ‘which could in law be regarded as a coercion of his will so as to vitiate his consent.’ This conception is in line with what was said in this Board's decision in
415:
200:
agreement was not valid (1) because there was no consideration, only in the past and under a pre-existing duty, and (2) because it was a contract procured under duress.
187:
in Fu Chip, and Fu Chip bought all the shares of Shing On. Fu Chip bought all the shares in Shing On, and Pao received as payment 4.2m shares in Fu Chip (worth
340:
474:
557:
450:
318:
252:
95:
329:
620:
426:
635:
605:
290:
610:
247:
152:
91:
17:
216:
223:
Their
Lordships agree that the mere existence or recital of a prior request is not sufficient in itself to convert what is
100:
499:
615:
488:
208:
107:
283:
513:
630:
148:
103:
484:
276:
160:
583:
164:
8:
543:
156:
140:
75:
38:
307:
238:
439:
243:
188:
180:
365:
Universe
Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation
192:
506:
Universe
Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers’ Federation
176:
599:
212:
144:
626:
Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Hong Kong
256:
3 KB 106, relevant in determining whether he acted voluntarily or not.
196:
404:
Dimskal
Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers' Federation
592:
PS Atiyah, 'Duress and the
Overborne Will Again' (1983) 99 LQR 353
544:
Pao On and others v Lau Yiu Long and another (Hong Kong) , UKPC 17
378:
B&S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green
Publications Ltd
522:
North Ocean
Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd.
268:
261:
it must amount to a coercion of will, which vitiates consent.’
184:
582:
PS Atiyah, 'Economic Duress and the
Overborne Will' (1982) 98
555:
See Restatement of the Law, Contracts, ch 3, s 84(d) and
232:
On the point of duress, Lord Scarman held the following.
391:
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpact Banking Corp
558:
NZ Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd
129:
Consideration, economic duress, commercial pressure
589:D Tiplady, 'Concepts of Duress' (1983) 99 LQR 188
597:
215:’s advice, first disposed of the question about
463:Mutual Finance Ltd v John Wetton & Sons Ltd
546:, delivered 9 April 1979, accessed 3 July 2023
58:Pao On and others v. Lau Yiu Long and another
284:
175:Fu Chip Investment Co. Ltd., a newly formed
428:R v Attorney General for England and Wales
291:
277:
37:
542:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
153:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
14:
598:
416:Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co
272:
24:
621:English unconscionability case law
500:Iniquitous pressure in English law
25:
647:
489:unconscionability in English law
298:
636:1980 in United Kingdom case law
606:English enforceability case law
611:English consideration case law
563:
549:
536:
13:
1:
576:
149:Court of Appeal of Hong Kong
7:
514:Atlas Express Ltd. v. Kafco
264:
203:
10:
652:
485:English unjust enrichment
482:
471:
458:
447:
436:
423:
412:
399:
386:
373:
360:
349:
337:
326:
315:
304:
128:
123:
118:
113:
87:
82:
71:
63:
53:
45:
36:
31:
529:
170:
616:English duress case law
248:Lord Simon of Glaisdale
101:Lord Simon of Glaisdale
258:
230:
18:Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long
353:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
234:
221:
163:. It is relevant for
147:appeal case from the
137:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
32:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
165:English contract law
78:, AC 614, HKLR 225
341:The Atlantic Baron
308:Barton v Armstrong
239:Barton v Armstrong
217:past consideration
191:2.50 for each $ 1
631:1980 in Hong Kong
495:
494:
475:Norreys v Zeffert
440:Williams v Bayley
133:
132:
96:Viscount Dilhorne
16:(Redirected from
643:
570:
567:
561:
553:
547:
540:
464:
451:Silsbee v Webber
429:
405:
392:
379:
366:
319:Astley v Reyonds
293:
286:
279:
270:
269:
253:Maskell v Horner
244:Lord Wilberforce
92:Lord Wilberforce
83:Court membership
41:
29:
28:
21:
651:
650:
646:
645:
644:
642:
641:
640:
596:
595:
579:
574:
573:
568:
564:
554:
550:
541:
537:
532:
496:
491:
478:
467:
462:
454:
443:
432:
427:
419:
408:
403:
395:
390:
382:
377:
369:
364:
356:
345:
333:
322:
311:
300:
297:
267:
242:AC 104, 121 by
206:
173:
151:decided by the
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
649:
639:
638:
633:
628:
623:
618:
613:
608:
594:
593:
590:
587:
578:
575:
572:
571:
562:
548:
534:
533:
531:
528:
527:
526:
518:
510:
502:
493:
492:
483:
480:
479:
472:
469:
468:
459:
456:
455:
448:
445:
444:
437:
434:
433:
424:
421:
420:
413:
410:
409:
400:
397:
396:
387:
384:
383:
374:
371:
370:
361:
358:
357:
350:
347:
346:
338:
335:
334:
330:Skeate v Beale
327:
324:
323:
316:
313:
312:
305:
302:
301:
296:
295:
288:
281:
273:
266:
263:
205:
202:
177:public company
172:
169:
131:
130:
126:
125:
121:
120:
116:
115:
111:
110:
89:
85:
84:
80:
79:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
55:
54:Full case name
51:
50:
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
648:
637:
634:
632:
629:
627:
624:
622:
619:
617:
614:
612:
609:
607:
604:
603:
601:
591:
588:
585:
581:
580:
566:
560:
559:
552:
545:
539:
535:
524:
523:
519:
516:
515:
511:
508:
507:
503:
501:
498:
497:
490:
486:
481:
477:
476:
470:
466:
465:
457:
453:
452:
446:
442:
441:
435:
431:
430:
422:
418:
417:
411:
407:
406:
398:
394:
393:
385:
381:
380:
372:
368:
367:
359:
355:
354:
348:
343:
342:
336:
332:
331:
325:
321:
320:
314:
310:
309:
303:
294:
289:
287:
282:
280:
275:
274:
271:
262:
257:
255:
254:
249:
245:
241:
240:
233:
229:
226:
220:
218:
214:
213:Privy Council
211:, giving the
210:
201:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
168:
166:
162:
158:
157:consideration
155:, concerning
154:
150:
146:
142:
139:
138:
127:
122:
117:
114:Case opinions
112:
109:
106:
105:
102:
98:
97:
93:
90:
88:Judge sitting
86:
81:
77:
74:
70:
66:
62:
59:
56:
52:
49:Privy Council
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
565:
556:
551:
538:
520:
512:
504:
473:
460:
449:
438:
425:
414:
401:
388:
375:
362:
352:
351:
339:
328:
317:
306:
299:Duress cases
259:
251:
237:
235:
231:
224:
222:
209:Lord Scarman
207:
174:
145:contract law
136:
135:
134:
119:Lord Scarman
108:Lord Scarman
99:
94:
67:9 April 1979
57:
26:
569:AC 614, 635
509:2 All ER 67
225:prima facie
104:Lord Salmon
600:Categories
577:References
197:indemnify
72:Citations
265:See also
204:Judgment
124:Keywords
141:UKPC 17
76:UKPC 17
64:Decided
525:QB 705
517:QB 833
344:QB 705
185:shares
161:duress
530:Notes
193:share
171:Facts
143:is a
46:Court
487:and
246:and
159:and
586:197
584:LQR
602::
189:$
183:1
181:$
167:.
292:e
285:t
278:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
