The effect of duress: barton v armstrong (1976) (duress to the person and threats of violence) privy council decided that the onus was on armstrong, the party who had made the threat, to show that it had no effect. Barton v armstrong  ac 104 privy council armstrong was the chairman and held the largest sharing holding in landmark corporation ltd a public company barton was the managing director and also had a substantial shareholding in. In barton v armstrong, a decision of the privy council, armstrong (defendant) sought to coerce barton (plaintiff) into executing a deed relating to the sale of certain companies by threatening to have him murdered while the plaintiff took the threats seriously, other business reasons existed for signing the contract. Armstrong's asserted right of possession is claimed under that federal law thus subject matter jurisdiction was vested in the federal district court ¶13 armstrong's assertion that the prior judgment is void for want of jurisdiction is based on two oklahoma cases: neal v. In barton v armstrong the privy council held that, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that, the threats had made no contribution to the decision of signing the contract.
Barton v armstrong,  is a privy council decision on duress in australian and english contract law the court held that a person who agrees to a contract under physical duress may avoid the contract, even if the duress was not the main reason for agreeing to the bargain. Barton v armstrong (1976) ac 104 armstrong and barton both worked in landmark corporation ltd as the chairman and managing director respectively armstrong holding the majority shares in the public company. Milionis v rivas 2017 onsc 5001 discussed the law of duress when an application was brought to seek a declaration that a $400,000 mortgage was invalid as it was purportedly signed under duress.
With threats to the person and property (detaining/doing violence to) o barton v armstrong : c agreed in a deed to buy out d's interest in landmark after entering into it because of d's threat to have him killed. There have been many cases in our history where duress involved threats of murder for instance, you can look at the case of barton v armstrong (1976) armstrong, the former chairman of a big company, threatened barton, the managing director, with death if he did not to purchase shares in the company. In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Abstract barton v armstrong is a judicial committee of the privy council decision on duress in english law in australian contract law and english contract law the court held that a person who agrees to a contract under physical duress may avoid the contract, even if the duress was not the main reason for agreeing to the bargain. And in contract law, words can amount to duress if the threat is sufficiently serious (barton v armstrong (1969)) more recently, in crime, words alone and even silence have been accepted as assault (r v ireland r v burstow (1998).
Duress at common law duress is a defence rendering a contract voidable duress may basically be defined as illegitimate pressure brought to bear on one of the parties with the result that the latter has no reasonable alternative but to enter into the contract. Duress law cases duress to the person barton v armstrong  ac 104 a (the former chairman of a company) threatened b (the managing director) with death if he did not agree to purchase a's shares in the company. Barton v armstrong involved a threat to murder neville fm was surprised at the absence of jurisprudence in family law cases, saying (at para 27): the act requires that the ultimate result in property cases be “just and equitable. ↑ see barton v armstrong  ukpc 2,  ac 104, where mr armstrong tried to strong-arm mr barton into paying him a large golden parachute to exit a business by getting his goons to make death threats to barton's family even though barton was tough, and would have probably done the payout regardless, he could avoid the agreement.
The law of tort (民事侵權法) 1 what is tort one party suffers damage or loss as the result of the action of another no need for a contractual relationship the law of tort regulates the behaviour of crime v tort • punishing the. A look at the facts and decisions in two privy council cases in english contract law. This is seen in cases of barton v armstrong and williams v bayley  in the case we are dealing with we can it is economic duress as illegitimate commercial pressure is exerted by one party on another.
Barton v armstrong  ukpc 2 december 5, 1973 legal helpdesk lawyers on 5 december 1973, the united kingdom privy council delivered barton v armstrong & ors  ac 104  ukpc 2 (5 december 1973. In barton v armstrong  mr armstrong tried to strong-arm mr barton into paying him a large golden parachute to exit a business by getting his goons to make death threats to barton's family even though barton was tough, and would have probably done the payout regardless, he could avoid the agreement. University of new south wales - laws1052 - introducing law and justice full length, in detail, case brief for the case zanker v vartzokas goes through facts, issues, rule and conclusion. The leading case that identifies the concept of threats is barton v armstrong  2 nswr 451 i f there is a threat to hit or strike a person, even where the distance would make it impossible at the time of the threat for it to occur if the recipient of the threat has fear instilled, then an offence may have occurred.