The test for duress in the South African law of contract

Although it is well-known that a contract induced by duress is voidable at the instance of an aggrieved party, little analysis of this cause of action has been undertaken in South Africa. The test for duress developed by Wessels, and adopted by the courts in Broodryk v Smuts NO 1942 TPD 47, has exer...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Glover, Graham
Format: Others
Language:English
Published: 2006
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10962/70756
https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC53682
id ndltd-netd.ac.za-oai-union.ndltd.org-rhodes-vital-29726
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-netd.ac.za-oai-union.ndltd.org-rhodes-vital-297262018-11-23T04:39:59ZThe test for duress in the South African law of contractGlover, GrahamAlthough it is well-known that a contract induced by duress is voidable at the instance of an aggrieved party, little analysis of this cause of action has been undertaken in South Africa. The test for duress developed by Wessels, and adopted by the courts in Broodryk v Smuts NO 1942 TPD 47, has exercised a vice-grip over this area of contract law. In this article, all five elements of the traditional South African test are subjected to critical examination, and their deficiencies are exposed and discussed. It is argued that the test is neither logically nor conceptually satisfactory, and has hampered development of this area of law. Trends in other jurisdictions, belonging to both the civil-law and the common-law families, are analysed and compared to South African law. On this basis a more modern and coherent test is proposed. This test would be two-pronged, and involve an assessment, in turn, of the lawfulness of the threat made and of whether the party who in fact succumbed to an unlawful threat and entered into the contract was legally justified in doing so.2006textarticle28 pagespdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10962/70756vital:29726https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC53682EnglishSouth African Law JournalJutaThe use of this resource is governed by the terms and conditions of the Sabinet Terms and Conditions of Use statement (https://journals.co.za/upload/marketing/Sabinet_Website_TandC_2017.pdf)
collection NDLTD
language English
format Others
sources NDLTD
description Although it is well-known that a contract induced by duress is voidable at the instance of an aggrieved party, little analysis of this cause of action has been undertaken in South Africa. The test for duress developed by Wessels, and adopted by the courts in Broodryk v Smuts NO 1942 TPD 47, has exercised a vice-grip over this area of contract law. In this article, all five elements of the traditional South African test are subjected to critical examination, and their deficiencies are exposed and discussed. It is argued that the test is neither logically nor conceptually satisfactory, and has hampered development of this area of law. Trends in other jurisdictions, belonging to both the civil-law and the common-law families, are analysed and compared to South African law. On this basis a more modern and coherent test is proposed. This test would be two-pronged, and involve an assessment, in turn, of the lawfulness of the threat made and of whether the party who in fact succumbed to an unlawful threat and entered into the contract was legally justified in doing so.
author Glover, Graham
spellingShingle Glover, Graham
The test for duress in the South African law of contract
author_facet Glover, Graham
author_sort Glover, Graham
title The test for duress in the South African law of contract
title_short The test for duress in the South African law of contract
title_full The test for duress in the South African law of contract
title_fullStr The test for duress in the South African law of contract
title_full_unstemmed The test for duress in the South African law of contract
title_sort test for duress in the south african law of contract
publishDate 2006
url http://hdl.handle.net/10962/70756
https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC53682
work_keys_str_mv AT glovergraham thetestforduressinthesouthafricanlawofcontract
AT glovergraham testforduressinthesouthafricanlawofcontract
_version_ 1718796263237877760