Duress (Contract): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| shortlink = https://rvt.link/15 | | shortlink = https://rvt.link/15 | ||
}} | }} | ||
==<i>Great Neighbour Realty Inc. v Acheampong,</i> 2018 CanLII 109990 (ON SCSM)<ref name="Great"/>== | ==<i>Great Neighbour Realty Inc. v Acheampong,</i> 2018 CanLII 109990 (ON SCSM)<ref name="Great"/>== | ||
Latest revision as of 01:05, 13 September 2022
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2004 |
| Page Categories: | Contract Law |
| Citation: | Duress (Contract), CLNP 2004, <https://rvt.link/15>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | MKent |
| Last Updated: | 2022/09/13 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
Great Neighbour Realty Inc. v Acheampong, 2018 CanLII 109990 (ON SCSM)[1]
[21] An agreement between parties may be voided if it was signed while under physical or moral duress. An essential element required to void a contact for duress is that there was illegitimate pressure applied to the party claiming duress. To clarify, in finding that the plaintiff in Lei v. Crawford, 2011 ONSC 349 (CanLII) had not proven duress, Justice Perell held that:[2]
- [20] Duress involves coercion of the consent or free will of the party entering into a contract. To establish duress, it is not enough to show that a contracting party took advantage of a superior bargaining position; for duress, there must be coercion of the will of the contracting party and the pressure must be exercised in an unfair, excessive or coercive manner. See: Brooks v. Alker (1975), 1975 CanLII 423 (ON SC), 9 O.R. (2d) 409 (H.C.J.);[3] Underwood v. Cox (1912), 1912 CanLII 582 (ON SCDC), 26 O.L.R. 303 (C.A.);[4] Burris v. Rhind (1899), 1899 CanLII 87 (SCC), 29 S.C.R. 498;[5] Piper v. Harris Mfg. Co. (1888), 15 O.A.R. 642.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Great Neighbour Realty Inc. v Acheampong, 2018 CanLII 109990 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/hw5cd>, retrieved on 2022-09-12
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lei v. Crawford, 2011 ONSC 349 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2fb5h>, retrieved on 2022-09-12
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Brooks v. Alker et al., 1975 CanLII 423 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1gk4>, retrieved on 2022-09-12
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Underwood v. Cox, 1912 CanLII 582 (ON SCDC), <https://canlii.ca/t/gw5j5>, retrieved on 2022-09-12
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Burris v. Rhind, 1899 CanLII 87 (SCC), 29 SCR 498, <https://canlii.ca/t/ggxfj>, retrieved on 2022-09-12
