Duress is where a party(ies) is forced to enter into a contract by violence or the threat of violence and

this renders the contract voidable meaning the innocent party can sue the wrongdoer.

The original common law of duress confined the doctrine within a very narrow limit whereby it was only
recognized if the thread of violence or and actual violence was directed to a person but not a good
meaning if a person unlawfully detained,or threatened to detaine , another's good no claim of duress
would be entertained in the Court since it was not considered to be sufficient duress to enable a
contract voidable as per the holding in the case of Skeate v Beale (1840)11 Ad&El 983.

However there is a reatitutionary rule to the effect that money paid to obtain the release of goods
wrongfully detained,or to avoid seizure,may be recovered as per the case of Maskell v
Hrner(1915)3KB106.

Therefore due to the above unfairness at the common law, court have developed what is know as
economic duress where there's undue pressure the court may intervene for example in D&C Builders Ltd
v Rees lord Denning refused to invoke estoppel on ground that the wife,who knew that the builders
were in urgent need of money exerted improper pressure to compel them to accept a sum which was
substantially less than the one they were owed.And this principle was also applied in the case of Sibeon
v The Sibotre where Kerr J rejected the view that restricted duress to to physical violence.

Therefore court recognized that certain forms of commercial pressure could amount to economic (good)
duress and the subsequent case North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction (The Atlantic Baron)
(1979)QB 705 confirmed that duress could take the form of economic duress.

In order for there to be a valid contract, the parties must act freely.Therefore if one party is forced to
enter into a contract by violence or threat of violence, the court is entitled to grant remedies to the
innocent party and these include,

Claim of damages.as duress has been equated with tort of intimidation,it would follow that a remedy for
damages would lie in tort for in the case of Morgan v Fry (1968) 2 QB 710

Rescission.since the effect of duress is make the contract voidable, the injured party will, therefore be
entitled to have the contract set a side for operative duress, unless when expressly or impliedly
affirmed.the victim must seek rescission as soon as possible after the original pressure has ceased to
operate.This can be evidenced by the case of North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction.

Undue influence is some unfair and improper conduct, some coercion from outside, some overreaching,
some form of cheating and generally, though not always, some personal advantage gained as per Lindley
Lj in the case of Allcard v skinner (1887)36ChD 145 where the plantiff a woman of about 35 years of age
was introduced by her spiritual adviser,N to the defendant who was the spiritual supervisor of the Sister
of the Poor,3 year later the plantiff became a sister and took the vow of poverty, chastity and obedience
and surrendered a property valued at 7000pounds to the defendant.when she left the sisterhood by
which time all the money had been spent by the defendant on the institution leaving a balance of only
1671 pounds.Therefore GH Treitel, The Law of Contract argues that equity gives relief on the ground of
undue influence where an agreement has been obtained by certain kinds of improper pressure which
were thought not to amount to duress at common law because no element of violence to the person
was involved

From the above it's clear that a person who has been induced to enter into a transaction by undue
influence of another is entitled to set that transaction aside against the wrongdoer.This means that the
effect of undue influence, like duress, is to make a contract voidable

It's impossible to note that there's majorly two forms of undue influence as per the classification by the
house of Lords in the case of Barclays bank v O'Brien (1993)4 All ER 417 and these include;

Actual undue influence.In this case it's necessary for the claimant to prove affirmatively that the
wrongdoer exerted undue influence on the complaint to enter into a particular transaction which is
impugned.For example in the case of Williams v Bailey (1866)LR 1 HL 200,a son forged his father's
signature on promissory note and gave them to their bankers.After further discussion as to the son's
financial liability the bank's solicitor said that they could only look to the father.The father then agreed
to make an equitable mortgage to the bank in consideration of the return of the promissory notes
however it was held by Westbury Lj that the security given for the debt of the son by the father under
such circumstances,was not the security of a man who acted with that freedom and power of
deliberation that freedom and power of deliberation that must be considered as necessary to validate a
contract to give security for the debt of another

Although sec(14)1 of the contract Act requires that the party should have used his dominant position to
obtain an unfair advantage over the other party however under actual undue influence manifest
advantage is not required and this can be witnessed by the case of CBIC Mortgage plc v Pitt

Presumed undue influence in this case the complainant only has to show,in the first instance, that thee
was a relationship of trust and confidence between him and the wrongdoer of such a nature that it is
fair to presume that the wrongdoer abused that relationship in procuring the complaint to enter the
impugned transaction

.This is true in the case of parents and child, advocate and a client, doctor and patient,trutee and
beneficiary as per the case of Hassanali Issa &Co v Jeraj produce store where the court held that undue
influence only arises in contract where one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the
other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage. This can also be backed by the case of
Allcard v skinner and Roche v Sherrington

However a relationship between a banker and customer will not normally give rise to a presumed undue
influence but it can do so in exceptional cases if the customer has placed himself entirely in the hands of
the bank and has not been given any opportunity to seek independent advice.This can be backed by the
case of National Westminster Bank v Morgan (1985)1 All ER 821
As earlier indicated that undue influence makes a contract voidable, meaning the court of law have to
give some remedies to the injured party whose consent was obtained by unfair and improper conduct to
enter a contract and these remedies include;

Rescission and where this is ordered, the whole transaction will be set aside as was in the case of TSB
Bank v Camfield(1995)1All ER 951 and Dunbar v Nadeem (1998)3 All ER 876

Severance.The court may sever from an instrument affected by undue influence the objectionable parts
leaving the part uncontaminated by undue influence enforceable