Facts: A women looked for a priest to hear her confession. Next year she became a spiritual director of a sisterhood before coming a full member. She gave gifts of value amounting to £7,000 to the defendant, on behalf of the sisterhood. After leaving the sisterhood she claimed the property back

Held: Although there was undue influence, the delay between leaving the sisterhood and bringing the action was too long to allow for a recovery of the property

Facts: B&S entered into a contract to erect stands for a big exhibition. Just before the exhibition B&S said they won’t do it unless they get more money. Victor Green (the organisers) was in a bad position and the timing meant they could not get anyone else in to erect the stands and if they didn’t get the stands up there would be many claims from those exhibitors who wished to exhibit there. The organisers reluctantly agreed to pay the extra money to erect the stands

Held: Court said this amounted to duress and Victor Green had NO ‘practical choice’ here

⇒ Kerr LJ = "a threat to break a contract unless money is paid” will not always be duress unless by refusing to pay would lead to “serious and immediate” consequences"

Facts: Barton agreed to buy some shares that Armstrong had in a company, which had apparently been agreed due to a threat of death.

Held: Privy Council held where you are dealing with threats of violence to the person, that threat only needs to be A reason why they entered the contract and NOT the only, significant reason. However, with economic duress the pressure needs to be the significant cause/reason why they entered into the contract

Facts: Aboody was much younger than her husband and for many years she signed documents for her husband’s business without reading/questioning him. She had signed documents relating to their house to support loans by the bank to the business even though she had taken no independent advice, but had one meeting with a solicitor who suggested she seek legal advice. Her husband came into the meeting and made her cry.

Held: The husband had not acted with an improper motive but there was actual undue influence by hiding matters and effectively bullying her to sign the documents. But, the Court of Appeal said that Aboody’s claim failed because it was not to her “manifest disadvantage” (note: there is no longer a need to prove a ‘manifest disadvantage’ in actual undue influence cases). Today she would probably be successful as someone who is bullied to sign a contract can have it set aside even if they could receive a benefit from signing the contract

⇒ The Court of Appeal created categories of undue influence:

• Class 1 = actual undue influence
• Class 2A = presumed undue influence (influence in relationships which will always appear to show presumption of undue influence)
• Class 2B = presumed undue influence (influence in relationships which means that undue influence should be presumed)

Facts: The defendants sent a consignment of cigarettes to the wrong address. The cigarettes were then stolen. The defendant mistakenly believed that the cigarettes were at the claimant's risk and sent them an invoice. The defendant threatened to withdraw the claimant's credit facility unless the invoice was paid. The claimants needed the credit facilities and so paid the invoice and then sought to reclaim the money on the grounds of economic duress.

Held: The threat to withdraw credit facility was lawful since under the terms of the credit agreement credit could be withdrawn at anytime. Therefore the threat was legitimate and consequently, economic duress could not be established. However, the court recognised that a lawful threat - such as this one - could have been illegitimate where there had been a lack of 'good faith' in making that threat. This is controversial.

Facts: Hewett involved a husband and a wife and the influence in that relationship between said husband and said wife. The husband’s business was in trouble. The husband persuade his wife to enter into a refinancing contract (this conversation could have involved emotional blackmail, shouting at her etc.). After the conversation the wife agree to enter into the refinancing contract. It was found that at the time husband tried to persuade her to enter into the contract it was discovered that the husband was having an affair. They were later divorced and the wife sought to have that refinancing contract set aside on the basis of undue influence

⇒ There was a problem with her argument to set aside the contract on the basis of undue influence: it relates to Birks’ and Chin’s theory of undue influence that excessive influence is needed as there was no evidence that there was excessive influence in this case. On the evidence, the wife entered into the contract without undue influence using the Birks and Chin theory. However, “…a finding of undue influence does not depend, as a necessary pre-requisite, upon a conclusion that the victim made no decision of her own, or that her will and intention was completely overborne”

Held: So, the Court of Appeal said that although the wife’s will and intention was not overborne there was undue influence.

⇒ The Court of Appeal referred to Lord Nicholls in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge where he said that “undue influence means that power has been misused” and “when a husband is forecasting the future of his business, and expressing his hopes or fears, a degree of hyperbole may be only natural. Courts should not too readily treat such exaggerations as misstatements”. Nicholls continues to say that a husband “abuses the influence he has” when he “he fails to discharge the obligation of candour and fairness he owes a wife who is looking to him to make the major financial decisions”. Undue influence is about influence/pressure in a relationship context and about regulating this relationship pressure

⇒ So there was no excessive pressure but the influence the husband did have was used improperly: “It is evident that Mrs Hewett's decision to accede to her husband's request was based upon an assumption on her part that he was as committed as she was to the marriage”, but this was not the case as “he had already embarked upon an affair”

Facts: Mrs Morgan was trying to refinance debts because of Mr Morgan’s business, so agreed to a legal charge of their house. The bank manager saw her and she signed the legal charge.

Held: Lord Scarman said there was no undue influence because the contract would have to be to the “manifest disadvantage” of Mrs Morgan, which it clearly wasn’t. You need to look at context, because although it was disadvantageous it was not a manifest disadvantage to her here

Facts: One party wanted to hire a ship to transport some metals to someone who had purchased metal from them. They entered into a contract with a ship owner, who breached the contract by hiring the ship to someone else after already signing the contract with the original hirers. The buyer still wanted the metal but asked for a discount for being late – this was agreed. The hirers told the ship owners that they are liable for their loss, and the ship owners gave a ‘take it or leave it’ offer for a small amount of compensation which was reluctantly agreed because they did not have time to prolong the discussion or go to court. Once the metal was delivered the hirers went back to the ship owners saying the original contract was voidable due to economic duress – they argued that the ‘take it or leave it’ offer was lawful, but in these circumstances it was duress

Held: There was economic duress

Facts: R was a member of the SAS who wanted to write about his experiences, but was told to sign a confidentiality agreement to say that he wouldn’t write a book. Pressure had been put on him saying that if he wrote the book he would be chucked out the SAS and returned to his unit. Later, R wanted to get out the contract claiming economic duress.

Held: There was NO duress and the pressure on him had been legitimate because national security was involved.

Facts: The plaintiffs (i.e. claimants) hired a couple of ships from the defendants, who then made a threat saying they would go bankrupt if the defendants did not renegotiate. The plaintiffs knew the shipping industry wasn’t doing so well so exploited this and the defendants reluctantly agreed. The defendants then changed there mind because of the improper pressure, but the plaintiffs sued for breach of contract

Held: The contract couuld be set aside and following the judgement of Kerr J, the court seemed to have begun a sort of doctrine of economic duress