|
Unconscionability In English Law
Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of voluntary (or consensual) 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 (i.e., contrary to good conscience) 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. Considerable controversy is still present over whether "iniquitous pressure" must actually be exercised by a defendant in order for a voluntary ob ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Contract Law
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 (such as Australia, Canada, India), 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. Generally a contract forms when one person makes an offer, and another person accepts it by communicating their assent or performing the offer's terms. If the terms are certain, and the parties can be presumed from their beha ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Vernon V Bethell
''Vernon v Bethell'' (1762is an English property law case, where it was affirmed that there could be no clog on the equity of redemption. In justifying this rule, Lord Henley LC made the famous observation that, The case stands for the principle "once a mortgage, always a mortgage", meaning a borrower cannot contract to give up his automatic right to redeem title to his property once the debt is paid. It was a landmark decision in upholding some basic protection at common law for debtors. It also had historic significance in the principle it laid out inspired the Second Bill of Rights, proclaimed by the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1944 State of the Union Address, to promote basic social and economic rights for all citizens. Facts Major James Vernon wished to pay off his debts to Mr Bethell’s estate and recover title of a sugar plantation in Antigua where he lived. Vernon had taken out a £278 mortgage on the land, and on 5 March 1729 he assigned the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Foakes V Beer
is an English contract law case, which applied the controversial pre-existing duty rule in the context of part payments of debts. It is a leading case from the House of Lords on the legal concept of consideration. It established the rule that prevents parties from discharging an obligation by part performance, affirming '' Pinnel's Case'' (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. In that case it was said that "payment of a lesser sum on the day .e., on or after the due date of a money debtcannot be any satisfaction of the whole." Facts The appellant, Dr John Weston Foakes, owed the respondent, Julia Beer, a sum of £2,090 19s after a court judgment. Beer agreed that she would not take any action against Foakes for the amount owed if he would sign an agreement promising to pay an initial sum of £500 (£52,615.38 in 2012 adjusted for inflation) and pay £150 twice yearly until the whole amount was paid back. Foakes was in financial difficulty and, with the help of his solicitor, drew up an agre ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Stilk V Myrick
''Stilk v Myrick'' King's_Bench_on_the_subject_of_ 809EWHC_KB_J58is_an_English_contract_law_case_heard_in_the_Court_of_King's_Bench_(England)">King's_Bench_on_the_subject_of_Consideration_under_English_law">consideration._In_his_verdict,_the_judge,_Edward_Law,_1st_Baron_Ellenborough.html" ;"title="Consideration_under_English_law.html" "title="English contract law">809EWHC KB J58is an English contract law case heard in the Court of King's Bench (England)">King's Bench on the subject of Consideration under English law">consideration. In his verdict, the judge, Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough">Lord Ellenborough decided that in cases where an individual was bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration for a new contract. It has been distinguished from '' Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd'', which suggested that situations formerly handled by consideration could instead be handled by the doctrine of economic ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pinnel's Case
''Pinnel's Case'' 6025 Co. Rep. 117a, also known as ''Penny v Cole'', is an important case in English contract law, on the doctrine of part performance. In it, Sir Edward Coke opined that a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole. Facts Pinnel sued Cole, in an action of debt upon a bond, for the sum of £8 10s. The defendant, Cole, argued he had, at Pinnel's request, tendered £5 2s 2d before the debt was due, and the plaintiff had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt. (KahuroSam 2021) Judgment The case reports the judgment as follows. ''Pinnel's case'' was followed by ''Foakes v Beer'' 884ref name=Foakes> and ''Jorden v Money'' 854 Exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's Case The case law has evolved over the years to create a number of exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case. The exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case include: * Payment accompanied by fresh consideration; * Prepayment of debt at the creditor's request; * Payment of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd V Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd
is an English contract law case relating to undue influence. Facts Mr. Lobb was the managing director of a small petrol station in South Street, Braintree, Essex. It had to buy petrol only from British branch of French oil company Total S.A. In 1969 he was in financial difficulty. Contrary to his solicitor's advice, he entered into a lease and lease back arrangement with a new tie agreement with Total Oil. This proved costly. Eventually he paid off debts and ten years after sought the agreement to be set aside as being a restraint of trade and unconscionable. In the High Court, Mr Peter Millett QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, held that the agreement could not be set aside, and Mr Lobb appealed. This is similar to the case of ''Feras zob kabber v. Zaid'' (2011). Judgment Dillon LJ held it was not a restraint of trade or an unconscionable bargain and even if it had been, it would have been barred by laches anyway. See also *English contract law *Iniquitous press ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
CTN Cash And Carry Ltd V Gallaher Ltd
''CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd'' 993EWCA Civ 19is an English contract law case relating to duress. It raised the question whether an act could be considered to be economic duress if the act would in any event be lawful. Facts CTN Cash and Carry Ltd had a dispute with Gallaher Ltd about whether CTN should pay for some cigarettes that were delivered to the wrong warehouse and got stolen before Gallaher Ltd could pick them up again and take them to another warehouse. Gallaher believed that CTN was liable, because the risk of any had already passed, and threatened to withdraw CTN's credit facility for future dealings. They were entitled to do this for any reason. CTN paid. Later it was determined that the risk of the lost cigarettes was not on CTN and they sued for repayment. Judgment Steyn LJ held that the threatened withdrawal of future credit was not duress, but he expressly refrained from saying there could never be ‘lawful act duress’ in a commercial context. He sa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Atlas Express Ltd V Kafco
''Atlas Express v. Kafco (Importers & Distributors) Ltd.'' 989QB 833 is an English contract law case relating to duress. Facts Kafco Ltd. had a contract to supply Woolworths with baskets. They had a ‘trading agreement’ with Atlas Express for at least six months to undertake the deliveries. Atlas Express realised it had underestimated the size of cartons to be carried, so it was costing more to deliver. Kafco would not vary the price. On 18 November 1986,Law Society Gazette, "Contract: economic distress", published 30 August 1989 Atlas sent an empty truck to Kafco, with a letter saying if a higher charge was not agreed to, the truck would leave empty. Kafco would go broke without the contract, so they "felt compelled to sign". Later, Kafco refused to pay, and argued there was economic duress, and also no new consideration.See A Burrows, ''Cases and Materials on Contract'' (2nd edn Hart 2009) 709 Kafco also successfully argued that Atlas had given no consideration for its p ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Universe Tankships Inc Of Monrovia V International Transport Workers' Federation
''Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers’ Federation'' 9822 All ER 67 is an English contract law case relating to duress. Facts The International Transport Workers' Federation 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 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 s 13. Judgment Lord Diplock 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 expressly or by implication after the illegitimate pressure has ceased to operate on his mind.’ It was not appropria ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pao On V Lau Yiu Long
''Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long'' 979UKPC 17is a contract law appeal case from the Supreme Court of Hong Kong">Court of Appeal of Hong Kong decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, concerning Consideration (law), consideration and duress in English law, duress. It is relevant for English contract law. Facts Fu Chip Investment Co. Ltd., a newly formed public company, majority owned by Lau Yiu Long and his younger brother Benjamin (the defendants), wished to buy a building called "Wing On", 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 $1 shares 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 $2.50 for each $1 share). To ensure the share price of Fu Ch ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd V Hyundai Construction Co Ltd
''North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd.'' 979QB 705 is an English contract law case relating to duress. Facts Hyundai were shipbuilders who entered into a contract dated 10 April 1972 with North Ocean Shipping to build the oil tanker "Atlantic Baron". The price of ships was payable in five instalments, and the builders had agreed to a reverse letter of credit, for repayment of installments in the event of default on the construction. In 1973, after the first instalment was paid for a ship called the ''Atlantic Baron'', the US dollar was devalued. Hyundai said they would not deliver unless the price went up ten per cent. North Ocean was worried they would lose a favourable charter with Shell. They said they would pay the extra money in a telex on 28 June 1973 because they wished ‘to maintain an amicable relationship and without prejudice to our rights.’ North Ocean also asked for the letter of credit to contain a corresponding increase and this was done ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
The Atlantic Baron
''North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd.'' 979QB 705 is an English contract law case relating to duress. Facts Hyundai were shipbuilders who entered into a contract dated 10 April 1972 with North Ocean Shipping to build the oil tanker "Atlantic Baron". The price of ships was payable in five instalments, and the builders had agreed to a reverse letter of credit, for repayment of installments in the event of default on the construction. In 1973, after the first instalment was paid for a ship called the ''Atlantic Baron'', the US dollar was devalued. Hyundai said they would not deliver unless the price went up ten per cent. North Ocean was worried they would lose a favourable charter with Shell. They said they would pay the extra money in a telex on 28 June 1973 because they wished ‘to maintain an amicable relationship and without prejudice to our rights.’ North Ocean also asked for the letter of credit to contain a corresponding increase and this was d ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
