Duress, undue influence & mistake

What "Duress, undue influence & mistake" covers

• Duress to the person, goods, or economic interests requires illegitimate pressure that was a significant cause leaving the victim no practical choice.
• Lawful-act duress is exceptional and requires bad faith or unconscionable exploitation (Times Travel).
• Actual undue influence is proved by overt improper pressure; presumed undue influence arises from a relationship of trust and confidence plus a transaction calling for explanation.
• A third party (e.g. a bank) may be fixed with notice of undue influence and must take reasonable steps, such as ensuring independent advice (Etridge).
• Common mistake (both parties share a fundamental false assumption) may void the contract only where the subject matter or a fundamental quality is affected.
• Unilateral mistake as to terms or identity can void a contract, especially in face-to-face versus written dealings.
• The remedy for undue influence and duress is rescission, subject to the usual bars.

Key cases & statutes

The authorities and provisions most likely to matter for this subtopic:

How it's tested in SQE1

SQE1 uses single best answer questions: a short factual scenario, one precise question, and five options of which only one is the best answer on the law applied to the facts. For duress, undue influence & mistake, expect to be asked what the correct legal position is, what a party may or must do, or which outcome follows — with more than one option looking arguable. Reading the facts carefully and eliminating the near-misses is the skill that earns the mark.

Where candidates lose marks

• Forgetting that economic duress needs illegitimate pressure and the absence of any practical alternative.
• Assuming a relationship of trust alone proves undue influence without a transaction calling for explanation.
• Overstating common mistake, which is narrow and rarely voids a contract merely because it is a bad bargain.

FAQ

More Contract subtopics