1/4/2024 0 Comments Duress vs undue influence![]() ![]() Courts have shown – if threatened harm is neither “imminent or inevitable”- show that the threatened The ability to attack the validity of such agreements for want ofįree exercise of will as a result of duress has been placed in perspective by the Supreme Court ofĪppeal which has confirmed that, in our law, unlike in the United Kingdom and the USA,Įconomic pressure in the normal sense does not amount to duress allowing for the negation of an ![]() ▪ There is no limit to the instances in which commercial agreements are struck within the context Repayment of monies over-claimed, and signed the acknowledgements of debt to this effect. Off for continued direct payments to him, Bhamjee, within the bargaining process, agreed to In other words, this process of hard bargaining was not equivalent to duressĮven where the bargain struck was the product of an imbalance in bargaining power. Medscheme exercised the force of its discretion whether to allow direct payments to medical The Court, however, found that theseĬircumstances were nothing more than the product of a bargaining process in terms of which Generated by Medscheme, expressly or implied, that direct payments would discontinue withĭramatic economic consequences for Bhamjee. ▪ There was no doubt that the acknowledgements of debt were signed as a result of the fear Threat that direct payments to him would be discontinued thereby bringing about the collapse of ▪ Bhamjee argued that he had signed the acknowledgements of debt under duress, in particular, the These claims were paid, but when Bhamjee's conduct was discovered, he wasĬonfronted and persuaded to sign acknowledgements of debt in terms of which he agreed to ▪ Bhamjee, a medical practitioner had submitted false and excessive claims to Medscheme forĭirect payment. ![]() ▪ economic duress is constituted by illegitimate commercial pressure exerted on a party to aĬontract, which induces him to enter into the contract, and which amounts to a coercion of the ▪ SCAstated that the threat of economic ruin, in appropriate circumstances, may form grounds for a Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Limited & Another v Bhamjee – economic duress ![]() If no protest –relief can still be granted if there is satisfactory evidence to establish that the contract.However – generally silence is not indicative of free consent.The contract – to prove involuntary nature of the transaction Some courts have indicated that there has to be proof of protest at the time of payment or entry into.Threat must be directed at the life, bodily integrity or property, or immediate family Opinion that there was no threat of dismissal and that the alleged fear by the respondent was illogical The threat of dismissal was not expressed. Where a former employee had alleged that he felt that he had no option but to sign an agreementĬontaining a restraint of trade. Paragon Business Forms (Pty) Ltd v Du Preez 1994 (1) SA 434 (SE).the more unreasonable the fre, the greater will be the reluctance of the court to accept that it actually.threat must be sufficiently grave to affect the mind of a reasonably steadfast person.coercion operates on the mind of the victim by forcing him/her to choose between entering the vis compulsive- coercion of the will ( not physical force) the effective cause of the contract ( but for the threat o innocent part would not have contracted at.And the moral pressure used must have caused damage.The threat or intimidation must be contra bonos mores.It must be a threat of an imminent or inevitable evil.The fear must be caused by the threat of some considerable evil to the party or his family.threatened party may set aside and claim restitution and damages.Consent obtained by improper means contract is voidable at the option of the threatened party.If one enters a contract under duress-doing so because of fear as a result of an illegitimate threat.Improper pressure leading to intimidation.ultimately contract will be deemed to be valid until misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence is.contract is deemed voidable at the instance of the innocent party.Unlike material mistake – parties are aware of with whom and on what terms they are contracting on.When a party enters into a contract due to duress, undue influence or misrepresentation-asĬonsensus has been reached but is ha ben reached improperly. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |