Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Duress is a threat of harm made to compel someone to do something against their will or judgment; especially a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by another person to a transaction without real volition. - Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) Duress in contract law falls into two broad categories: [6]
Coercion can involve not only the infliction of bodily harm, but also psychological abuse (the latter intended to enhance the perceived credibility of the threat). The threat of further harm may also lead to the acquiescence of the person being coerced. The concepts of coercion and persuasion are similar, but various factors distinguish the two.
In the 2010 New York trial of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani who was accused of complicity in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled evidence obtained under coercion inadmissible. [17] The ruling excluded an important witness, whose name had been extracted from the defendant under duress. [18]
The defence of duress (by threat), according to Lord Bingham in R v Hasan, "excuses what would otherwise be criminal conduct" rather than justifies it. Bingham draws a distinction here with self-defence regarding between the moral status of the victim: in a case of self-defence, the victim has themselves made an aggressive or criminal act ...
Specifically, the person must intentionally make a threat in a context, and under such circumstances, that a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by persons hearing or reading it as a serious expression of an intention to harm the president. The statement must also not be the result of mistake, duress or coercion.
The court set aside the mortgage, and expressed itself as doing so for reasons of undue influence; today the case would almost certainly have been treated as duress. For undue influence the equitable concept of "pressure" is much wider than for duress. Actual undue influence does not require the making of any threat. [15]
The Chinese threat of economic coercion has been effective, but the U.S. has leverage over China due to its reliance on supplying U.S. companies, and can leverage the imbalance in China's export ...
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. 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 ...