Factors which can taint or prevent conclusion of a valid contract: Duress

1. Factors which can taint or prevent conclusion of a valid contract:Duress Duress Def: When one party threatens, intimidates or coerces the other into entering the contract Threat can be directed at the other�s person, property or reputation etc Requirements for duress to render the contract voidable - threat must not be trivial - must be one which a reasonable person would believe would be carried out if not obeyed (one which doesn't provide innocent party with opportunity to prevent it)

2. Duress Requirements for duress to render the contract voidable (CNTND) Threats directed at financial and business interests: innocent party required to register a protest when entering into a contract NB Blackburn v Mitchell (1897): floundering ship p 72 NB Hendricks v Barnett 1975: identification of horses p 72-73

3. Undue influence Relates to the exercise of an influence by one party to such a degree that the other party is incapable of forming an independent and rational judgment - differs with duress in that it does not necessarily involve coercion or threat by the other party (subtle) - one party exploits a relationship of dominance and dependence between the parties - dominant party uses the acquired influence to persuade the innocent party to enter into a contract that he/she would not have entered into but for the exercise of undue influence

4. Undue influence ? likely to exist where there is a special relationship of confidence between parties eg attorney/ client, doctor/patient, guardian/minor, religious adviser/disciple NB Preller v Jordaan 1956 (1) SA 483 (A) (donation of 4 farms to a doctor) p74 ? Jordaan only recovered one farm because the doctrine of restitutio integrum does not affect third parties not party to the original contract - may be coupled with fraud/duress