arisen, albeit one produced by undue commercial pressure. However, in cases of ‘traditional’ duress involving the direct threat (or application) of physical force, it seems a little odd to think of any true contract as having ever come into existence. The classical view of duress was that it should overbear the will of the victim, but this has been described more recently as an unhelpful approach. This is especially so since it over-emphasises the reaction of the person who is threatened, to the exclusion of an examination of the conduct of the person who threatens. Moreover, if the will of the party seeking relief is overborne, the sole reason for entering the contract will have been the duress, but it is clear that the coercive pressure must be a reason for making the contract but need not be the reason or even the predominant or clinching reason. Despite

DOI link for arisen, albeit one produced by undue commercial pressure. However, in cases of ‘traditional’ duress involving the direct threat (or application) of physical force, it seems a little odd to think of any true contract as having ever come into existence. The classical view of duress was that it should overbear the will of the victim, but this has been described more recently as an unhelpful approach. This is especially so since it over-emphasises the reaction of the person who is threatened, to the exclusion of an examination of the conduct of the person who threatens. Moreover, if the will of the party seeking relief is overborne, the sole reason for entering the contract will have been the duress, but it is clear that the coercive pressure must be a reason for making the contract but need not be the reason or even the predominant or clinching reason. Despite

arisen, albeit one produced by undue commercial pressure. However, in cases of ‘traditional’ duress involving the direct threat (or application) of physical force, it seems a little odd to think of any true contract as having ever come into existence. The classical view of duress was that it should overbear the will of the victim, but this has been described more recently as an unhelpful approach. This is especially so since it over-emphasises the reaction of the person who is threatened, to the exclusion of an examination of the conduct of the person who threatens. Moreover, if the will of the party seeking relief is overborne, the sole reason for entering the contract will have been the duress, but it is clear that the coercive pressure must be a reason for making the contract but need not be the reason or even the predominant or clinching reason. Despite