217:
other return is simply one of the construction of the words of the contract in the circumstances of its making. Once it is recognised, as the Board considers it inevitably must be, that the expressed consideration includes a reference to the Paos' promise not to sell the shares before the 30th April 1974—-a promise to be performed in the future, though given in the past-—it is not possible to treat the Laus' promise of indemnity as independent of the Paos' antecedent promise, given at Lau's request, not to sell. The promise of indemnity was given because at the time of the main agreement the parties intended that Lau should confer upon the Paos the benefit of his protection against a fall in price. When the subsidiary agreement was cancelled, all were well aware that the Paos were still to have the benefit of his protection as consideration for the restriction on selling. It matters not whether the indemnity thus given be regarded as the best evidence of the benefit intended to be conferred in return for the promise not to sell, or as the positive bargain which fixes the benefit on the faith of which the promise was given—though where, as here, the subject is a written contract, the better analysis is probably that of the "positive bargain". Their
Lordships, therefore, accept the submission that the contract itself states a valid consideration for the promise of indemnity.
239:- observations with which the majority judgment appears to be in agreement. In determining whether there was a coercion of will such that there was no true consent, it is material to inquire whether the person alleged to have been coerced did or did not protest; whether, at the time he was allegedly coerced into making the contract, he did or did not have an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy; whether he was independently advised; and whether after entering the contract he took steps to avoid it. All these matters are, as was recognised in
28:
208:, because a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation to a third party can sometimes be good consideration. The question of whether consideration can be invalidated ‘if there has been a threat to repudiate a pre-existing contractual obligation or an unfair use of a dominating bargaining position’ was rejected because ‘where businessmen are negotiating at arm’s length it is unnecessary for the achievement of justice’. On the idea of past consideration, Lord Scarman said this:
168:, majority owned by Lau Yiu Long and his younger brother Benjamin (the defendants), wished to buy a 21-storey building then under construction called the "Wing On building", owned by Tsuen Wan Shing On Estate Co. Ltd. ("Shing On"), whose majority shareholder was Pao On and family (the claimants). Instead of simply selling the building for cash, Lau and Pao did a swap deal for the shares in their companies. Shing On would get 4.2m
184:). To ensure the share price of Fu Chip suffered no shock, Pao agreed not to sell 60% of the shares for at least one year. Also, in the event that the share price dropped in that year, Lau agreed to buy 60% of the shares back from Pao at $ 2.50. But then Pao realised, if the share price rose over $ 2.50 in the year, the price would stay fixed and he would not get the gains. So he demanded that instead of that, Lau would merely
249:
This was commercial pressure and no more, since the company really just wanted to avoid adverse publicity. For a general doctrine of economic duress, it must be shown ‘the victim’s consent to the contract was not a voluntary act on his part… provided always that the basis of such recognition is that
216:
past consideration into sufficient consideration in law to support a promise: as they have indicated, it is only the first of three necessary preconditions. As for the second of those preconditions, whether the act done at the request of the promisor raises an implication of promised remuneration or
188:
Pao if the share price fell below $ 2.50. Pao made clear that unless he got this "guarantee agreement", he would not complete the main contract. It was signed on 4 May 1973, but as it turned out the shares did slump in value. Pao tried to enforce the guarantee agreement. Lau argued the guarantee
391:
510:
365:
378:
352:
494:
450:
614:
225:
There must be present some factor ‘which could in law be regarded as a coercion of his will so as to vitiate his consent.’ This conception is in line with what was said in this Board's decision in
404:
189:
agreement was not valid (1) because there was no consideration, only in the past and under a pre-existing duty, and (2) because it was a contract procured under duress.
176:
in Fu Chip, and Fu Chip bought all the shares of Shing On. Fu Chip bought all the shares in Shing On, and Pao received as payment 4.2m shares in Fu Chip (worth
329:
463:
546:
439:
307:
241:
84:
318:
609:
415:
624:
594:
279:
599:
236:
141:
80:
205:
212:
Their
Lordships agree that the mere existence or recital of a prior request is not sufficient in itself to convert what is
89:
488:
604:
477:
197:
96:
272:
502:
619:
137:
92:
473:
265:
149:
572:
153:
8:
532:
145:
129:
64:
27:
296:
227:
428:
232:
177:
169:
354:
Universe
Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation
181:
495:
Universe
Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers’ Federation
165:
588:
201:
133:
615:
Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Hong Kong
245:
3 KB 106, relevant in determining whether he acted voluntarily or not.
185:
393:
Dimskal
Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers' Federation
581:
PS Atiyah, 'Duress and the
Overborne Will Again' (1983) 99 LQR 353
533:
Pao On and others v Lau Yiu Long and another (Hong Kong) , UKPC 17
367:
B&S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green
Publications Ltd
511:
North Ocean
Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd.
257:
250:
it must amount to a coercion of will, which vitiates consent.’
173:
571:
PS Atiyah, 'Economic Duress and the
Overborne Will' (1982) 98
544:
See Restatement of the Law, Contracts, ch 3, s 84(d) and
221:
On the point of duress, Lord Scarman held the following.
380:
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpact Banking Corp
547:
NZ Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd
118:
Consideration, economic duress, commercial pressure
578:D Tiplady, 'Concepts of Duress' (1983) 99 LQR 188
586:
204:’s advice, first disposed of the question about
452:Mutual Finance Ltd v John Wetton & Sons Ltd
47:Pao On and others v. Lau Yiu Long and another
535:, delivered 9 April 1979, accessed 3 July 2023
273:
164:Fu Chip Investment Co. Ltd., a newly formed
417:R v Attorney General for England and Wales
280:
266:
26:
531:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
142:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
587:
405:Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co
261:
13:
610:English unconscionability case law
489:Iniquitous pressure in English law
14:
636:
478:unconscionability in English law
287:
625:1980 in United Kingdom case law
595:English enforceability case law
600:English consideration case law
552:
538:
525:
1:
565:
138:Court of Appeal of Hong Kong
7:
503:Atlas Express Ltd. v. Kafco
253:
192:
10:
641:
474:English unjust enrichment
471:
460:
447:
436:
425:
412:
401:
388:
375:
362:
349:
338:
326:
315:
304:
293:
117:
112:
107:
102:
76:
71:
60:
52:
42:
34:
25:
20:
518:
159:
605:English duress case law
237:Lord Simon of Glaisdale
90:Lord Simon of Glaisdale
247:
219:
342:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
223:
210:
152:. It is relevant for
136:appeal case from the
126:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
21:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
154:English contract law
67:, AC 614, HKLR 225
330:The Atlantic Baron
297:Barton v Armstrong
228:Barton v Armstrong
206:past consideration
180:2.50 for each $ 1
620:1980 in Hong Kong
484:
483:
464:Norreys v Zeffert
429:Williams v Bayley
122:
121:
85:Viscount Dilhorne
632:
559:
556:
550:
542:
536:
529:
453:
440:Silsbee v Webber
418:
394:
381:
368:
355:
308:Astley v Reyonds
282:
275:
268:
259:
258:
242:Maskell v Horner
233:Lord Wilberforce
81:Lord Wilberforce
72:Court membership
30:
18:
17:
640:
639:
635:
634:
633:
631:
630:
629:
585:
584:
568:
563:
562:
557:
553:
543:
539:
530:
526:
521:
485:
480:
467:
456:
451:
443:
432:
421:
416:
408:
397:
392:
384:
379:
371:
366:
358:
353:
345:
334:
322:
311:
300:
289:
286:
256:
231:AC 104, 121 by
195:
162:
140:decided by the
12:
11:
5:
638:
628:
627:
622:
617:
612:
607:
602:
597:
583:
582:
579:
576:
567:
564:
561:
560:
551:
537:
523:
522:
520:
517:
516:
515:
507:
499:
491:
482:
481:
472:
469:
468:
461:
458:
457:
448:
445:
444:
437:
434:
433:
426:
423:
422:
413:
410:
409:
402:
399:
398:
389:
386:
385:
376:
373:
372:
363:
360:
359:
350:
347:
346:
339:
336:
335:
327:
324:
323:
319:Skeate v Beale
316:
313:
312:
305:
302:
301:
294:
291:
290:
285:
284:
277:
270:
262:
255:
252:
194:
191:
166:public company
161:
158:
120:
119:
115:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
78:
74:
73:
69:
68:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
43:Full case name
40:
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
637:
626:
623:
621:
618:
616:
613:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
596:
593:
592:
590:
580:
577:
574:
570:
569:
555:
549:
548:
541:
534:
528:
524:
513:
512:
508:
505:
504:
500:
497:
496:
492:
490:
487:
486:
479:
475:
470:
466:
465:
459:
455:
454:
446:
442:
441:
435:
431:
430:
424:
420:
419:
411:
407:
406:
400:
396:
395:
387:
383:
382:
374:
370:
369:
361:
357:
356:
348:
344:
343:
337:
332:
331:
325:
321:
320:
314:
310:
309:
303:
299:
298:
292:
283:
278:
276:
271:
269:
264:
263:
260:
251:
246:
244:
243:
238:
234:
230:
229:
222:
218:
215:
209:
207:
203:
202:Privy Council
200:, giving the
199:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
157:
155:
151:
147:
146:consideration
144:, concerning
143:
139:
135:
131:
128:
127:
116:
111:
106:
103:Case opinions
101:
98:
95:
94:
91:
87:
86:
82:
79:
77:Judge sitting
75:
70:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
38:Privy Council
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
554:
545:
540:
527:
509:
501:
493:
462:
449:
438:
427:
414:
403:
390:
377:
364:
351:
341:
340:
328:
317:
306:
295:
288:Duress cases
248:
240:
226:
224:
220:
213:
211:
198:Lord Scarman
196:
163:
134:contract law
125:
124:
123:
108:Lord Scarman
97:Lord Scarman
88:
83:
56:9 April 1979
46:
15:
558:AC 614, 635
498:2 All ER 67
214:prima facie
93:Lord Salmon
589:Categories
566:References
186:indemnify
61:Citations
254:See also
193:Judgment
113:Keywords
130:UKPC 17
65:UKPC 17
53:Decided
514:QB 705
506:QB 833
333:QB 705
174:shares
150:duress
519:Notes
182:share
160:Facts
132:is a
35:Court
476:and
235:and
148:and
575:197
573:LQR
591::
178:$
172:1
170:$
156:.
281:e
274:t
267:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
