We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
This paper will examine the structure of the defendant-sided unjust factors, by which I mean duress and undue influence. The paper first argues that undue influence is based on abuse of deferential trust placed in the defendant and duress on an illegitimate threat leading to the claimant's lack of consent. The paper distinguishes undue influence from the unconscionable bargains doctrine. The paper then models the effect of that on the claimant's intentional agency by reference to Michael Bratman's influential theory of intention. It suggests that while mistake can be modelled by way of the failure of a condition on his intention, meaning that the claimant's intention does not cover the facts as they actually turn out to be, defendant-sided factors are based on the defendant's having improperly inveigled himself into the claimant's practical reasoning. It suggests that this happens either by way of the defendant's illegitimate structuring of the claimant's choice or by way of the claimant's deferring his judgment to that of the defendant. The claimant's intentions have, in philosophical language, agential authority, but the claimant was ‘in the grip of a norm’; the essay explores what this concept might be.
Earlier versions of this paper were given at the Restitution section of the SLS Conference at Nottingham University on 11 September 2014, and at a seminar at the University of Leeds Centre for Business Law & Practice on 26 January 2015. Many thanks to Gareth Spark and Pinar Akman for their comments as well.
1. Birks, Pbh An Introduction to the Law of Restitution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, rev edn, 1989) ch 5.Google Scholar
2. Sheehan, D ‘Mistake, failure of consideration and the planning theory of intention’ (2015) 28 Can J L & Juris 155; for an explanation of why analysing unjust enrichment actions in terms of Bratman's theory is useful, see at 155–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Webb, C ‘Intention, mistakes and resulting trusts’ in Mitchell, C (ed) Constructive and Resulting Trusts (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010) p 315.Google Scholar
3. Nair, A ‘“Mistakes of law” and legal reasoning: interpreting Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council ’ in Chambers, R, Mitchell, C and Penner, J (eds) Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Unjust Enrichment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) p 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Capper, D ‘The unconscionable bargain in the common law world’ (2010) 126 Law Q Rev 403.Google Scholar On the requirements in Australia, see Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 25, (2013) 87 ALJR 708; Bigwood, R ‘Still curbing unconscionability: Kakavas in the High Court of Australia’ (2013) 37 Melbourne U L Rev 463.Google Scholar
5. [2001] Ukhl 44, [2002] 2 Ac 776.
6. Birks, Pbh and Chin, N ‘On the nature of undue influence’ in Beatson, J (ed) Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) p 57.Google Scholar
7. For discussion, see Ridge, P ‘Third party volunteers and undue influence’ (2014) 130 Law Q Rev 112.Google Scholar
8. (1876) 36 ChD 145.
9. Spark, G Vitiation of Contracts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) p 251;Google Scholar Mitchell, C et al (eds) Goff and Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 88th edn, 2011) paras 11.06–1107 (hereinafter Goff and Jones).Google Scholar
10. (1887) 36 Ch D 154 (CA) 181.
11. Re Coomber [1911] 1. Ch 723; Tufton v Sperni [1952] 2 TLR 513; Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113.
12. [2001] UKHL 44; [2002] 1 AC 773 at 798.
13. [2002] 1 AC 773 at 796.
14. CIBC v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200.
15. [1990] 1 QB 923.
16. Re CMG [1970] Ch 574.
17. Lancashire Loans Ltd v Black [1934] 1 KB 380, but not (always) the other way round; see Hogg v Hogg [2007] EWHC 2240.
18. Markham v Karsten [2007] EWHC 1509.
19. (1866) 2 Ch App 55.
20. [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 at 822.
21. Ibid, at 842–843.
22. Mujih, E ‘Over ten years after Rbs v Etridge (no 2): is the law of undue influence in guarantee cases any clearer?’ (2013) 27 Int'l Company & Com L Rev 57 at 60–61.Google Scholar
23. Bigwood, R Exploitative Contracts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) p 387.Google Scholar
24. Ibid, p 431.
25. [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 at 797.
26. Ibid, at 780; see, in favour of a rebuttable presumption, Goff and Jones, above n 9, para 11.46.
27. [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 at 798–800.
28. Bigwood, above n 23, p 455.
29. RBS v Etridge (no 2) [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 at 795.
30. It may be that the fact a transaction is substantively unfair can provide evidence that there was a procedural problem with the agreement.
31. Chen-Wishart, M ‘Undue influence: beyond impaired consent and wrongdoing towards a relational analysis’ in Rodgers, A (ed) Mapping the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) p 201 at pp 220–222;Google Scholar Ridge, P ‘Undue influence and wills’ (2004) 120 Law Q Rev 617 at 618–619 Google Scholar.
32. [2004] HKCFA 80, (2004) 7 HKCFAR 579 at [30].
33. Chen-Wishart, M ‘Undue influence: vindicating relationships of influence’ [2006] 59(1) Current Legal Probs 231 at 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Bigwood, above n 23, pp 398–399. For Swain, it is both defendant- and plaintiff-sided: Swain, W ‘The unconscionable dealing doctrine: in retreat?’ (2014) 31 J Cont L 255.Google Scholar
35. Enonchong, N Duress, Undue Influence and Unconscionable Dealings (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006) para 9.005; Goff and Jones, above n 9, para 11.09 describes this as the dominant view.Google Scholar
36. [2002] EWCA Civ 885; Chen-Wishart, above n 33, at 235.
37. Goff and Jones, above n 9, para 11.14.
38. [2011] EWCA Civ 192.
39. Ibid, at [26–27]; a discussion of the split in case law between ‘wrongful’ and ‘non-wrongful’ or ‘impaired consent’ explanations of undue influence can be found in Elvin, J ‘The purpose of the doctrine of presumed undue influence’ in Giliker, P (ed) Re-Examining Contract and Unjust Enrichment (Leiden: Brill, 2007) p 231.Google Scholar
40. Chen-Wishart, above n 31, pp 202–203.
41. [1992] 2 Nzlr 157.
42. Ibid, at 165; Allan, B ‘Trust me: i'm your husband: undue influence and Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (no 2)’ (2006) 11 Otago L Rev 247 at 251.Google Scholar
43. Bigwood, above n 23, p 380; see also Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113 at 135, per Dixon J; Jenyns v Public Curator (Qld) (1953) 90 CLR 113; Haskew v Equity Trustees (1919) 27 CLR 287; and Haughey, M ‘The fiduciary explanation for presumed undue influence cases’ (2012) 50 Alberta L Rev 129.Google Scholar In England, see Re Coomber [1911] 1 Ch 723; Re Craig [1971] Ch 9511.
44. Enonchong, above n 35, paras 10.001, 14.054.
45. Ibid, para 14.013; Goff and Jones, above n 9, paras 11.29–11.30 arguing that presumed undue influence is different from self-dealing. Rbs v Etridge (no 2) [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 at 820–822 includes a discussion of abuse of confidence.
46. Demerara Bauxite Co. Ltd v Hubbard [1923] AC 673, PC; Cibc v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200 (HL) at 209, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson.
47. See Moody v Cox [1917] 2 Ch 71.
48. Flannigan, R ‘The fiduciary obligation’ (1989) 9 Oxford J Legal Stud 285 at 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Ibid, at 286–287; Bigwood, above n 23, pp 410–423.
50. Chen-Wishart, above n 33, at 253.
51. [2010] 1 P&CR 16.
52. [2005] EWCA Civ 507; see also de Wind v Wedge [2008] EWHC 514; Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457 (HCA) 470; Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie Bin Omar [1929] AC 127; Union Fidelity Trustee Co. of Australia v Gibson [1971] VR 573; Dunbar Bank v Nadeem [1998] 1 All ER 876; Morley v Loughnan [1893] 1 Ch 723; and Bank of Montreal v Stuart [1911] AC 120. On overborne wills, see Anz Banking Group v Alirezai [2004] QCA 6 at [100], per Wilson J.
53. See eg Bratman, M ‘Anchors for deliberation’ in Lumer, C and Nannini, S (eds) Intentionality, Deliberation and Autonomy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007) p 187.Google Scholar
54. Flannigan, above n 48, at 297.
55. Ibid, at 296; Bigwood, above n 23, pp 407–408.
56. Flannigan, R ‘The core nature of fiduciary accountability’ [2009] 3 NZ L Rev 375 at 402.Google Scholar
57. Bigwood, R ‘From Morgan to Etridge: tracing the (dis)integration of undue influence in the United Kingdom’ in Neyers, J et al (eds) Exploring Contract Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2009) p 379.Google Scholar
58. Bigwood, above n 23, p 414.
59. Maddaugh, Pd and McCamus, J The Law of Restitution in Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 22nd edn, 2004) para 26:400.Google Scholar
60. [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 at [9].
61. Ibid, at [10–11]; Spong v Spong (1914) 18 CLR 544; fiduciary duties are described in this way by LJ Millett in Bristol & West Bs v Mothew [1996] 4 All ER 698, CA 711.
62. [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 at [104]; but see Ridge, P ‘Uncertainties surrounding undue influence: its formulation, application and relation to other doctrines’ [2003] NZ L Rev 329 at 338.Google Scholar
63. [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 at [11].
64. Ibid, at [11].
65. Bigwood, R ‘Ill-gotten contracts in New Zealand: parting thoughts on duress, unconscionable dealing and undue influence: Kiwi style’ (2011) 42 Victoria U Wellington L Rev 83 at 104.Google Scholar
66. [2013] HCA 25, (2013) 87 ALJR 708.
67. Ibid, at [30], [135].
68. Ibid, at [161].
69. Capper, above n 4, at 408–410; Goff and Jones, above n 9, paras 11.58–11.64; Multiservice Bookbinding v Marden [1979] Ch 84; Alec Lobb Garages Ltd v Total Oil (GB) Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 87.
70. See Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi (2003) 217 CLR 315; Bridgwater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457; Edelman, J Gain-Based Damages (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002) pp 60–62 Google Scholar.
71. Boustany v Pigott (1995) 69 P&CR 298 (PC); Harrison v Schipp [2001] NSWCA 13 at [97–101], [123], per Giles JA; Australian Consumer Law s 227, as enacted by Sch 2 Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
72. Bigwood, above n 65, at 114; in the transactional disadvantage cases (Birks, above n 1, pp 208–216), there may well be no surrender at all of decision-making capacity. Salvage cases (Birks, above n 1, pp 304–306) work on the same principle of a fair sum for salvage or rescue operations and courts will strike down exorbitant charges.
73. Bigwood, above n 23, p 382.
74. Ibid, p 374.
75. Ibid, p 389.
76. Enonchong, above n 35, ch 5.
77. But it need not be a threat; see Borelli v Ting [2010] UKPC 21, where there were no threats as such, but by opposing a scheme of arrangement to fund the company's liquidation, Ting left the liquidators no reasonable alternative but to accede to his demands. Beale, H et al (eds) Chitty on Contracts (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 3131st edn, 2012) para 7.130 (hereinafter Chitty).Google Scholar
78. Universe Tankships Ltd v Monrovia [1986] AC 366 (HL) 400; Chitty, above n 77, para 7.005.
79. [1983] 1 AC 366.
80. [2003] UKPC 22.
81. Ibid, at [16] (Lord Hoffmann); The Universe Sentinel [1983] 1 AC 366, where the action was not tortious because of the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974; The Evia Luck [1992] 2 AC 152, where the action took place in Sweden and was not therefore actionable as a tort in England.
82. McKendrick, E ‘The further travails of duress’ in Burrows, A and Rodger, A (eds) Mapping the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) p 181 at p 188;Google Scholar Bigwood, above n 23, p 340.
83. See eg PBH Birks ‘The travails of duress’ [1990] LMCLQ 341 at 344; see to the contrary Tamblyn, N ‘Bad faith and causation in economic duress’ (2011) 27 J Cont L 140 at 150–151.Google Scholar
84. Goff and Jones, above n 9, para 10.90.
85. Burrows, As The Law of Restitution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33rd edn, 2011) p 275.Google Scholar
86. [2000] BLR 530; See also Chitty, above n 77, para 7.039.
87. [2000] BLR 530 at [134].
88. Ibid, at [136].
89. See eg B&S Contracts and Designs Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419, but see Griffiths, Lj at 425 and Kerr, Lj at 428 to the effect that not every unwilling submission to a variation of a contract will be under duress;Google Scholar Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco Ltd [1989] QB 833.
90. Spark, above n 9, p 223; see also Chitty, above n 77, paras 7.041–7.044; Goff and Jones, above n 9, para 10.43.
91. Halson, A ‘Opportunism, economic duress and contractual modifications’ (1991) 107 Law Q Rev 649 at 663.Google Scholar
92. (1924) 34 CLR 38.
93. It may be objectionable in some cases where there is only one, or there are very few, suppliers, as this might be seen as abuse of a dominant position. For a comparison of economic duress with relevant competition law rules, see Akman, P ‘The relationship between economic duress and abuse of a dominant position’ [2014] LMCLQ 99.Google Scholar
94. Equiticorp Finance Ltd v Bank of New Zealand (1993) 32 NSWLR 50; Deemcope Pty Ltd v Cantown Pty Ltd [1995] 2 VR 44; The Siboen and the Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 293 at 336, per Kerr J.
95. Mason, K, Carter, J and Tolhurst, G (eds) Mason and Carter's Restitution Law in Australia (Sydney: Butterworths, 22nd edn, 2008) para 525.Google Scholar
96. [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 856; the unconscionability test is also used in Harrison v Halliwell Lantau [2004] EWHC 1316.
97. Ibid, at 863; Borelli v Ting [2010] UKPC 21, [32].
98. Bigwood, above n 23, p 317.
99. Bigwood, R ‘Coercion in contract’ (1996) 42 U Toronto L J 207 at 232.Google Scholar
100. See AG v R [2003] UKPC 22; this was rejected in Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1988) 19 NSWLR 40; The Evia Luck [1992] 2 AC 152; Atiyah, Ps ‘Economic duress and the overborne will’ (1982) 98 Law Q Rev 197.Google Scholar
101. Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco Ltd [1989] QB 833 at 839 (Tucker J); Pao on v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 (HL) at 635–636 (Lord Scarman); The Siboen and the Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 293; The Atlantic Baron [1980] 2 Lloyds Rep 390; The Cenk Kaptanoglu [2012] EWHC 723, [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 835; see also Halson, above n 91, at 664–667, arguing that it is meaningless and inadequate at 677.
102. [2001] 2 NZLR 167 at 190.
103. AG v R [2003] UKPC 22, SA v Huyton Peter Cremer GmbH [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 620 at 638, per Mance J.
104. Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106 (CA).
105. D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 217.
106. Spark, above n 9, pp 218–230; see also Nav Canada v Greater Fredericton Airport Authority [2008] NBCA 28.
107. McLeod, C ‘Trust’ in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011) at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/ (accessed 3 October 2014) p 11.Google Scholar
108. See eg Spark, above n 9, pp 218–230 in the context of duress.
109. Bratman, M ‘Two problems in human agency’ (2001) 101 Proc Aristotelian Soc'y 309 at 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
110. Bratman, M ‘Valuing and the will’ (2000) 14 Phil Perspectives 249 at 258.Google Scholar
111. Bratman, M ‘Autonomy and hierarchy’ in Bratman, M. (ed) Structures of Agency (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) p 162 at p 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
112. Bratman, M ‘Reflection, planning and temporally extended agency’ (2000) 109 Phil Rev 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
113. Bratman, above n 109, at 319–320.
114. Bratman, M ‘Introduction’ in Bratman, M (ed), above n 111, p 1 at p 6.Google Scholar
115. Locke, J An Essay on Human Understanding (1690) bk II, ch xxvii, para 9.Google Scholar
116. Bratman, above n 109, at 311.
117. Ibid, at 316.
118. Ibid, at 321.
119. Ibid, at 322–324; full-blown agency seems a little slippery, as it is not clear whether the phrase, as used by different authors, implies agential direction or governance as well.
120. Bratman, M ‘Three forms of agential commitment: reply to Cullity and Gerrans’ (2004) 104 Proc Aristotelian Soc'y 329 at 330–332;Google Scholar Bratman, M ‘Hierarchy, circularity and the problem of double reduction’ in Bratman, M (ed), above n 111, p 68 at p 73 also distinguishes between a desire as motivating and reason-providing.Google Scholar
121. Sheehan, above n 2, at 164–167.
122. Bigwood, above n 23, p 379.
123. Bratman, M ‘Hierarchy, circularity and double reduction’ in Bratman, M (ed), above n 111, p 68 at p 79.Google Scholar
124. Ibid, p 81; the idea that agential authority acts in context can be found in M Bratman ‘Nozick, free will and the problem of agential authority’ in M. Bratman (ed), above n 111, p 127 at p 129.
125. This is Pettit's objection: Pettit, P A Theory of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) pp 45–47.Google Scholar
126. Leon, M ‘Reason and coercion: in defence of a rational control account of freedom’ (2011) 39 Philosophia 733 at 735–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
127. Ibid, at 737.
128. McKendrick, above n 82, p 184.
129. SA Huyton v Peter Cremer GmbH [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 620 at 636; Bigwood, above n 23, p 345.
130. Leon, above n 126, at 738.
131. Pallikkathayil, J ‘The possibility of choice: three accounts of the problem of coercion’ (2011) 11 Phil Imprint 16.Google Scholar
132. Bratman, above n 109, at 323; as indicated earlier, the notion of full-blown agency and whether it involves agential direction and/or governance is somewhat slippery.
133. Gibbard, A Wise Choices, Apt Feelings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) p 60.Google Scholar
134. Ibid, pp 70–71.
135. Ibid, pp 72–73.
136. Ibid, pp 74–75.
137. Yaffe, G ‘Indoctrination, coercion and freedom of the will’ (2003) 67 Phil & Phenomenological Res 335 at 342, 351 arguing that indoctrinators and coercers tend to give their victims extra reasons for action.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
138. [2003] UKPC 22, [2003] 1 EMLR 24; Phang, A and Tijo, H ‘Drawing lines in the sand: duress, undue influence and unconscionability revisited’ [2003] 11 Restitution L Rev 110.Google Scholar
139. Bigwood, above n 23, pp 306–307.
140. [1976] AC 121.
141. M Bratman ‘Hierarchy, circularity and double reduction’ in M Bratman (ed), above n 111, p 68 at p 77.
142. Leon, above n 126, at 739; see also Yaffe, above n 137, at 336, arguing that a manipulator undermines freedom of will in a way that a different causal mechanism with the same result does not.
143. Tiplady, D ‘Concepts of duress’ (1983) 99 Law Q Rev 188.Google Scholar
144. [1903] P 184; The Medina (1876) 1 PD 272 is another example. The ship had sunk – a natural constraint – but the master of the Timor was not permitted to charge an exorbitant sum to take the passengers trapped on a rock to port.Google Scholar
145. Birks, above n 1, p 306.
146. Chen-Wishart, above n 33, at 242.
147. Gibbard, above n 133, p 67.
148. Bigwood, above n 23, p 375.
149. Ibid, p 376.
150. Chen-Wishart, above n 33, at 249.
151. (1887) 36 Ch D 145 (CA) 170.
152. Ibid, at 184–185
153. Ibid, at 189.
154. Ridge, P ‘Negotiating the sacred in law: regulation of gifts motivated by religious faith’ in White, K and Coleman, E (eds) Negotiating the Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multi-Cultural Society (Canberra: ANU Press, 2006) p 133;Google Scholar Ridge, P ‘Equitable doctrine of undue influence considered in the context of spiritual influence and religious faith’ (2003) 26 UNSW L J 66.Google Scholar
155. (1990) 5 BPR 11 at 761; see also Morley v Loughnan [1893] 1 Ch 736; Hartigan v International Society for Krishna Consciousness [2002] NSWSC 810; McCulloch v Fern [2001] NSWSC 406; Ridge, P ‘McCulloch v Fern’ (2002) 18 J Cont L 138 Google Scholar.
156. Huguenin v Baseley (1807) 14 Ves Jun 273, 33 ER 526.
157. Morton, J ‘Deliberating for our far future selves’ (2013) 16 Ethical Theory & Moral Prac 809 at 815–816.Google Scholar
158. A reading of Bratman suggested by McKenna, M ‘Compatibilism: state of the art’ in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2009) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/supplement.html (accessed 13 September 2014).Google Scholar
159. A phrase used by Bratman, above n 123, at 70.
160. Bigwood, above n 23, p 375.
161. Chen-Wishart, above n 33, at 254.
162. Portman Building Society v Dusangh [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 221.
163. [1997] 4 All ER 144.
164. Pallikkathayil, above n 131, at 18.
165. See Sheehan, above n 2, at 164–167. In failure of consideration cases it is because of the failure of a condition to the parties’ joint or collective intention: ibid, at 175–178.
166. See eg Jaffey, P Private Law and Property Claims (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007).Google Scholar
167. See generally Sheehan, D and Arvind, Tt ‘Private law theory and taxonomy: reframing the debate’ (2015) 35 Legal Stud 480;CrossRefGoogle Scholar on Jaffey in particular, see Sheehan, D ‘The property principle and the structure of unjust enrichment’ [2011] 19 Restitution L Rev 138.Google Scholar
168. Bant, E The Change of Position Defence (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2009) pp 172–177, 195–196.Google Scholar
