Describe and evaluate the operation in the law of contract of the Essay

Describe and evaluate the operation in the law of contract of the doctrine of stinting custody - Essay ExampleIt has been suggested that because the courts are non keen to get involved in contractual arguments with commercial-grade parties that plaintiffs would be best advised to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment. one of the first cases to consider the notion of economic duress was The Sibeon and The Sibotre2. In this case the courts recognised that commercial pressure sensation could amount to economic duress in certain circumstances, but that commercial pressure alone was insufficient. Kerr J in this case felt that there must be some other factor inside the contract which could be regarded as a obsession of his will so as to vitiate his consent. This was followed in 1979 by the case of North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction (The Atlantic Baron)3 where the courts held that charge of economic hardship can by regarded as economic duress as such a fear could demonstrate c oercion by forcing the party to perform rather then risk financial hardship.In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long4 Lord Scarman agreed with the judgment of Kerr in The Sibeon and The Sibotre stating that duress whatever form it takes is a coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent. Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon of Glaisdale reinforced this notion in Barton v Armstrong5, stating that in determining whether there was a coercion of will such that there was no true consent, it is material to enquire whether the person alleged to have been coerced did or did not protest whether at the time he was allegedly coerced into making the contract, he did or did not have an alternative guide open to him such as an adequate legal remedy whether he was independently advised and whether subsequently entering the contract he took steps to avoid it.It was held in Pao On that there was no coercion of Laus will stating that there had been commercial pressure but the actions of Lau made it so that the court co uld not accept that there