Duress & Undue Pressure: 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.
(Created page with "==[http://canlii.ca/t/gdsvp Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2014 ONSC 5649 (CanLII)]==") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/gdsvp Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2014 ONSC 5649 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gdsvp Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2014 ONSC 5649 (CanLII)]== | ||
[50] The respondent relies upon the case of Stott v. Merit Investment Corp., 1988 CanLII 192 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (2d) 545. On pages 561 to 562 the Court stated: | |||
… But not all pressure, economic or otherwise, is recognized as constituting duress. It must be a pressure which the law does not regard as legitimate and it must be applied to such a degree as to amount to “a coercion of the will”, to use an expression found in English authorities, or it must place the party to whom the pressure is directed in a position where he has no “realistic alternative” but to submit to it, to adopt the suggestion of Professor Waddams (S.M. Waddams, The Law of Contract, 2nd ed. (1984), at p. 376 et seq.). Duress has the effect of vitiating consent and an agreement obtained thorugh [sic] duress is voidable at the instance of the party subjected to the duress unless by another agreement or through conduct, either express or implied, he affirms the impugned contract at a time when he is no longer the victim of the duress | |||
Revision as of 16:14, 13 December 2019
Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2014 ONSC 5649 (CanLII)
[50] The respondent relies upon the case of Stott v. Merit Investment Corp., 1988 CanLII 192 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (2d) 545. On pages 561 to 562 the Court stated:
… But not all pressure, economic or otherwise, is recognized as constituting duress. It must be a pressure which the law does not regard as legitimate and it must be applied to such a degree as to amount to “a coercion of the will”, to use an expression found in English authorities, or it must place the party to whom the pressure is directed in a position where he has no “realistic alternative” but to submit to it, to adopt the suggestion of Professor Waddams (S.M. Waddams, The Law of Contract, 2nd ed. (1984), at p. 376 et seq.). Duress has the effect of vitiating consent and an agreement obtained thorugh [sic] duress is voidable at the instance of the party subjected to the duress unless by another agreement or through conduct, either express or implied, he affirms the impugned contract at a time when he is no longer the victim of the duress
