Barton v Armstrong [1976]

House of Lords

Basic Facts: C agreed to buy out D’s interest in Landmark. C claimed that D had threatened to kill him, which influenced his decision to enter the contract. The trial judge found that the threat was not the primary reason for entering the contract but was motivated by commercial necessity.

Issue for the Court: How much does duress need to be a reason for entering a contract when it involves threats to person and property?

Held :The court held that duress need not be the sole reason for entering a contract; it only needs to be one of the reasons for relief.

• Lord Cross (majority) ruled that if duress influenced a party’s decision, even if it was not the sole reason, it provides grounds for relief. This principle is consistent with how misrepresentation is treated.

• Lord Wilberforce: The law should only interfere with conduct that directly affects the decision to enter a contract. If the threat was a reason, it must be considered, even if commercial necessity was also a factor.

💡Leveluplaw : This case established that a threat, even if not the primary reason for entering a contract, can constitute duress and provide grounds for relief, aligning duress principles with those of misrepresentation.