Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104
Judgement for the case Barton v Armstrong
Table Of Contents
B bought A’s shares because of A’s threats to kill him and his family if he did not.
The Privy Council held by majority that this allowed the contract to be set aside.
Lord Cross
For duress to negate a contract, the duress has to be a reason why the threatened party entered the contract, even if there were “other more weighty causes”.
However, if the threat did not affect the threatened party’s decision at all, it cannot cause the contract to be set aside.
The burden lies on the threatening party to show that the threat had no bearing on the threatened party’s decision. This is because if one man threatens another, he should bear the risk of the consequences.
McKendrick: NB the majority view that duress renders a contract void contradicts the Pao On view that it merely renders the contract voidable. Also NB the low threshold for the threatened party to overcome.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Barton v Armstrong
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
In depth revision notes with lecturer and academic commentary as well a...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| GDL Contract Law | Duress Notes (6 pages) |
| Contract Law | Duress Notes (8 pages) |
| Contract Law | Duress Notes (12 pages) |
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.