ABSTRACT
Part (a) of this question deals with duress, and part (b) with undue influence. The issues raised are quite distinct, and so the two parts should be looked at separately:
Part (a): • We are dealing here with ‘economic’ duress. The threat by Apex plc is
to break their contract with Nadir. In looking at the cases on economic duress, of which Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd (1989) is perhaps the most relevant, the issue of whether Nadir had any reasonable alternative to compliance will need
Answer both parts:
(a) Apex plc have a contract with Nadir Ltd. Apex tell Nadir that unless Nadir enter into a five year contract with Apex’s subsidiary, Crux Ltd, on terms which are particularly advantageous to Crux, they (Apex) will ‘terminate their agreement’ with Nadir. Despite the fact that the terms suggested mean that Nadir will make a loss on the deal with Crux, they agree because of the value which they place on their contract with Apex. Two years later, Apex go out of business. Nadir now want to escape from the contract with Crux.
