190:). It comes from (1) pressure amounting to compulsion of the will of the victim; and (2) the illegitimacy of the pressure exerted. The 'lack of any practicable choice but to submit' should be proved for (1) and here, for (2) the question was whether it was a trade dispute. The majority held the payment was unconnected with terms and conditions of employment and therefore not a trade dispute within s 29(1). Hence the act was duress.
172:
expressly or by implication after the illegitimate pressure has ceased to operate on his mind.' It was not appropriate to say the conduct was commercial pressure 'wherever one party to a commercial transaction is in a stronger bargaining position than the other party' should give rise to a right of redress.
155:
black listed a
Universe Tankship Inc. ship in the context of a trade dispute. To secure the release of the ship, Universe Tankships Inc. paid $ 6,480 into ITWF's welfare fund. ITWF admitted this was an agreement procured by duress, but it argued its actions were protected by immunity from tort in
171:
said duress is not about not knowing what you are contracting for, but 'his apparent consent was induced by pressure exercised on him by that other party which the law does not regard as legitimate, with the consequence that the consent is treated in law as revocable unless approbated either
331:
17:
305:
318:
292:
390:
344:
439:
463:
269:
403:
379:
247:
88:
258:
152:
502:
355:
157:
512:
219:
447:
497:
470:, 1 WLR 87, 94, refusal to waive existing contractual obligations is not duress, because there is no wrongful threat.
507:
417:
178:
said that duress not only renders a contract voidable but is also a tort if it causes damage or loss (referring to
517:
212:
66:
413:
96:
205:
186:
455:
281:
84:
433:
136:
8:
236:
180:
18:
Universe
Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation
467:
368:
49:
Universe
Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation
294:
Universe
Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation
132:
Universe
Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v International Transport Workers' Federation
491:
428:
122:
175:
168:
92:
80:
333:
Dimskal
Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers' Federation
307:
B&S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green
Publications Ltd
197:
140:
118:
464:
Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great
Britain) Ltd
320:
Crescendo
Management Pty Ltd v Westpact Banking Corp
489:
392:Mutual Finance Ltd v John Wetton & Sons Ltd
213:
153:International Transport Workers' Federation
357:R v Attorney General for England and Wales
220:
206:
32:Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v ITWF
158:Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
448:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
14:
490:
345:Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co
201:
24:
503:English unconscionability case law
25:
529:
418:unconscionability in English law
227:
513:1982 in United Kingdom case law
13:
1:
479:
451:350 F.2d 445 (C.A. D.C. 1965)
7:
193:
163:
10:
534:
108:Lord Diplock, Lord Scarman
498:United Kingdom labour law
414:English unjust enrichment
411:
400:
387:
376:
365:
352:
341:
328:
315:
302:
289:
278:
266:
255:
244:
233:
117:
112:
107:
102:
76:
71:
62:
54:
44:
36:
31:
474:
440:Lloyds Bank Ltd. v Bundy
146:
97:Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
89:Lord Russell of Killowen
508:English duress case law
187:Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long
456:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
282:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
85:Lord Cross of Chelsea
518:House of Lords cases
434:English contract law
137:English contract law
270:The Atlantic Baron
237:Barton v Armstrong
181:Barton v Armstrong
135:2 All ER 67 is an
424:
423:
404:Norreys v Zeffert
369:Williams v Bayley
139:case relating to
128:
127:
16:(Redirected from
525:
393:
380:Silsbee v Webber
358:
334:
321:
308:
295:
248:Astley v Reyonds
222:
215:
208:
199:
198:
72:Court membership
29:
28:
21:
533:
532:
528:
527:
526:
524:
523:
522:
488:
487:
482:
477:
425:
420:
407:
396:
391:
383:
372:
361:
356:
348:
337:
332:
324:
319:
311:
306:
298:
293:
285:
274:
262:
251:
240:
229:
226:
196:
166:
149:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
531:
521:
520:
515:
510:
505:
500:
486:
485:
481:
478:
476:
473:
472:
471:
460:
452:
444:
436:
431:
422:
421:
412:
409:
408:
401:
398:
397:
388:
385:
384:
377:
374:
373:
366:
363:
362:
353:
350:
349:
342:
339:
338:
329:
326:
325:
316:
313:
312:
303:
300:
299:
290:
287:
286:
279:
276:
275:
267:
264:
263:
259:Skeate v Beale
256:
253:
252:
245:
242:
241:
234:
231:
230:
225:
224:
217:
210:
202:
195:
192:
165:
162:
148:
145:
126:
125:
115:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
78:
77:Judges sitting
74:
73:
69:
68:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
40:House of Lords
38:
34:
33:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
530:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
495:
493:
484:
483:
469:
466:
465:
461:
458:
457:
453:
450:
449:
445:
442:
441:
437:
435:
432:
430:
429:UK labour law
427:
426:
419:
415:
410:
406:
405:
399:
395:
394:
386:
382:
381:
375:
371:
370:
364:
360:
359:
351:
347:
346:
340:
336:
335:
327:
323:
322:
314:
310:
309:
301:
297:
296:
288:
284:
283:
277:
272:
271:
265:
261:
260:
254:
250:
249:
243:
239:
238:
232:
223:
218:
216:
211:
209:
204:
203:
200:
191:
189:
188:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
161:
159:
154:
144:
142:
138:
134:
133:
124:
123:trade dispute
120:
116:
111:
106:
103:Case opinions
101:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
79:
75:
70:
67:
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
39:
35:
30:
27:
19:
462:
454:
446:
438:
402:
389:
378:
367:
354:
343:
330:
317:
304:
291:
280:
268:
257:
246:
235:
228:Duress cases
185:
179:
176:Lord Scarman
174:
169:Lord Diplock
167:
150:
131:
130:
129:
93:Lord Scarman
81:Lord Diplock
48:
26:
58:2 All ER 67
492:Categories
480:References
468:EWCA Civ 2
63:Transcript
194:See also
164:Judgment
113:Keywords
55:Citation
459:AC 614
443:QB 326
273:QB 705
160:s 13.
141:duress
119:Duress
475:Notes
147:Facts
37:Court
416:and
184:and
151:The
494::
143:.
121:,
95:,
91:,
87:,
83:,
221:e
214:t
207:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.