Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

CONTRACT – promissory estoppel and duress (lectures 6 & 7)
PE: All promises must be supported by consideration
...
The general rule is that part payment of a debt is not good consideration
...
Also see Stilk v Myrick; Hartley v Ponsonby
...
PINNEL’S CASE– if you offer something
different in kind then that is good consideration
...
*Where the
contract is partially executed it may be discharged
by deed or accord and satisfaction
2
...

3
...
It is an equitable
doctrine ie to achieve justice when common law
doesn’t do so
...

PE – must honor your promise
...
There is no need to show
consideration
...

Elements:
a)clear and equivocal promise to suspend existing
contractual rights - Woodhouse v Nigerian Pound
...

b)change of position by promise in reliance on the
promise – Ajayi v Briscoe
c)reliance need not be detrimental ie do not that
you suffered but that you went ahead and did
something as a result of the reliance on the promise
– The Post Chaser
d)must be inequitable for promisor to go back on
the promise – D & C Builders v Rees (£300 or
nothing was said by Rees
...

Rees quotes Pinnels under different thing ie
cheque
...
Rees claims PE
...

It is not a cause of action – Combe v Combe
...

Advancement of PE? HC of Australia has been
flexible Waltons Stores Ltd v Maher
...

Effect of PE?
It is generally suspensory – rights resumed on
‘reasonable notice’ – Tool Metal v Tungsten
Electric
...
–
D&C builders v Rees

 

DURESS: “some form of coercion or threat to the person, property, or to a person’s financial
interests”
...
Contract entered into under duress is
voidable (but not void) and can be set aside by the court
...
Can either use duress as a defence or use it to get your money
back
...
The duress need not
be ‘the reason’ (for entering into
the contract), just ‘a’ reason
...
Test for causation is: ‘but
for’
...
NB
...
The original
contract is unchanged/still valid, it
is the extra that is void
...


ECONOMIC DURESS TODAY
“There must be pressure, resulting in lack of
practical choice for the victim, which is
illegitimate, and which is a significant cause
inducing the C to enter into the contract” – DSND
subsea v petroleum geo ltd
...

LACK OF PRACTICAL CHOICE
“whether the victim had any realistic practical
alternative but to submit” –DSND subsea v
petroleum geo
...

ILLEGITIMATE PRESSURE
Factors to consider in assessing legitimacy of
pressure: threatened breach of contract? Good or bad
faith? Protest? Affirmation?

Development:
1
...
ED first recognised in The
Siboen & The Sibotre
...
This case shows that
the courts don’t like duress
...

3
...

4
...
Test for causation: must
be the significant cause’ ‘but for’
the duress they would not have
entered into the contract– huyton
sa v peter cremer
...

b)good or bad faith?
Illegitimate threat, but for lawful end is good faith –
DSND subsea ltd v petroleum geo-services – safety
of the divers was a priority
...
Ct won’t award duress easily
...
In North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v
Hyundai Construction Co Ltd, The Atlantic Baron,
therefore, it was held that the plaintiffs' inaction
during the 8 month period following the delivery of
the tanker under the construction contract amounted
to constructive affirmation of the contract

---