Barton v Armstrong

Last updated

Barton v Armstrong
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Privy Council
Full case nameAlexander Barton, Appellant v. Alexander Ewan Armstrong and Others, Respondents
DecidedDecember 5, 1973 (1973-12-05)
Citation(s) [1973] UKPC 27, [1976] AC 104
Case history
Prior action(s)Barton v Armstrong [1973] 2  NSWLR  598
Appealed from NSW Court of Appeal
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Wilberforce, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Kilbrandon, Sir Garfield Barwick
Case opinions
Decision byLord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Kilbrandon and Sir Garfield Barwick
Keywords
Duress

Barton v Armstrong is a Privy Council decision heard on appeal from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, [1] relating to duress and pertinent to case law under Australian and English contract law.

Contents

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.

Facts

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 Alexander Armstrong, a NSW state politician, and buy his shares for $180,000. Armstrong was the chairman of the board.

Street J found Armstrong had indeed threatened to have Barton killed. But the NSW Court of Appeal said Barton failed to discharge the onus that the threat had caused him to make the contract. [2]

Advice

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 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 entering an agreement. Lord Cross said the same rule should apply for duress as in misrepresentation, "that if Armstrong's threats were a 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".

Lord Wilberforce 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 a reason for entering the contract. They held the case

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 – 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' ( Fairbanks v Snow [3] )

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".

See also

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat, or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act they ordinarily would not perform. The notion of duress must be distinguished both from undue influence in the civil law. In criminal law, duress and necessity are different defenses.

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.'

<i>Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co</i> Landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound , is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that loss will be recoverable where the extent of possible harm is so great that a reasonable man would guard against it.

Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian contract law</span>

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

<i>D & C Builders Ltd v Rees</i>

D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1965] EWCA Civ 3 is a leading English contract law case on the issue of part payment of debt, estoppel, duress and just accord and satisfaction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contractual term</span> Any provision forming part of a contract

A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, the breach of which may give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

<i>British Leyland Motor Corp v Armstrong Patents Co</i>

British Leyland Motor Corp. v Armstrong Patents Co. is a 1986 decision of the House of Lords concerning the doctrine of non-derogation from grants. This doctrine is comparable to, but somewhat broader than, the doctrine of legal estoppel, assignor estoppel, or estoppel by deed in U.S. law. Under the doctrine of non-derogation from grants, a seller of realty or goods is not permitted to take any action that would lessen the value to the buyer of the thing sold.

Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of voluntary obligations unfairly exploiting the unequal power of the consenting parties. "Inequality of bargaining power" is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.

<i>Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long</i>

Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 17 is a contract law appeal case from the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, concerning consideration and duress. It is relevant for English contract law.

<i>Crabb v Arun DC</i> English land and contract law case

Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] EWCA Civ 7 is a leading English land law and contract case concerning "proprietary estoppel". Lord Denning MR affirmed that where agreements concern the acquisition of rights over land, there is no need for both parties to provide a consideration for upholding the bargain. While promissory estoppel cannot found a cause of action it was held that in the peculiar situation of land, consideration is not necessary at all.

<i>Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd</i>

Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd[1974] UKPC 3 is a leading company law case, concerning the duty of directors to act only for "proper purposes". This duty has been codified into the Companies Act 2006 section 171, and arises particularly in cases involving takeover bids.

Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation [1982] 2 All ER 67 is an English contract law case relating to duress.

North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. [1979] QB 705 is an English contract law case relating to duress.

<i>R v Attorney General for England and Wales</i>

"R" v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003] UKPC 22 is a New Zealand contract law case, heard by the Privy Council acting as the final court of appeal of New Zealand and not as part of the judiciary of the UK, relating to duress and undue influence.

<i>Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd</i>

Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd, is a land law case, in which the Privy Council held that restrictions on the right to redeem a mortgage are void. The equity of redemption means that borrowers are able to sell or obtain new mortgage finance promptly and without impinging on other dependent transactions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia</span>

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:

... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings is a leading judgment of the Privy Council which summarised the test for whether a term should implied 'in fact' into a contract, to give effect to the intentions of the contracting parties. While the formulation of the test is not without criticism, it is usually accepted as setting out the tests for the implication of a term into a contract.

Pakistan International Airlines Corp v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40 is an English contract law case, concerning economic duress.

References

  1. ↑ Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC 27 , [1976] AC 104(5 December 1973), Privy Council (on appeal from NSW).
  2. ↑ Barton v Armstrong [1973] 2 NSWLR 598 (30 June 1971), Court of Appeal (NSW, Australia).
  3. ↑ Fairbanks v. Snow , 145 Mass. 153, 13 NE 596 (1887)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.