Question: CONTRACT LAW CASE STUDY 2, ASSIGNMENT 2, TASK ONE
Barry is a retired lorry driver who has just set up his own distribution service called 'Deliveries R Us'. Pencilbox PLC, his first customers, want to use Barry's service to deliver stationery to some of their retail outlets. They reached an agreement and a contract was signed whereby Barry would deliver a minimum of 3000 boxes of stationery for Pencilbox over the next 12 months. The contract was to commence on the 1st April. No maximum figure was specified in the contracts and a delivery charge of £1.00 per box was laid down by Barry.
Barry expected to deliver a higher amount than the minimum specified and so decided to take out a bank loan in order to upgrade his existing fleet of lorries.
However six months later, Pencilbox pic wanted to renegotiate the delivery charge threatening immediate withdrawal unless the charge was reduced to 50p per box. They also told him that they wanted him to enter a three year contract with 'Gadgets Ltd' a subsidiary of Pencilbox pic or they would terminate their business arrangement with his distribution service.
Barry has found that his distribution service hasn't been as busy as he believed it would be and so agreed to the new arrangements as he didn't want to lose their custom even though he was aware he would be making a lose on the contract with Gadgets Ltd.
Barry has asked for your advice. You are a junior partner of Patel and Brown Solicitors and have been asked by your senior to write a report on whether he can claim the lost monies for every delivery he made on the grounds that the modification made to the contract was due to improper pressure.
Answer: Regarding: Duress - For a contract to be binding the parties must voluntarily consent to it. Therefore if one party is forced to make the contract by violence or the threat of violence then this is common law duress and renders the contract voidable. Traditionally the common law of duress confined the doctrine. Only duress to the person was recognised, it would only make a contract voidable where one party obtained the others consent by means of physical violence and treats of it, as it was seen in the following cases Cumming v Ince1 and Barton v Armstrong2 where in both cases the contract was set aside because of duress. As a result of the nineteenth century limitation on duress, it could not be applied to duress of property and goods. Therefore if a person unlawfully detained, or threate......(short extract)
To download the full answer, please Sign in or Register then make a payment or submit coursework.
Details: - Mark: 73% | Course: Contract Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 4749 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2007 | Date submitted: April 18, 2009 | Coursework ID: 474
