Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

b. 7-012 "...It has been said that a threat to destroy or damage property may amount to duress. It is now accepted that the same is true of a true of a threat to seize or detain goods wrongfully...".

c. 7-024 "Causation in general. In all cases of duress it is necessary that the victim‟s agreement was caused by the duress. However, it appears that the nature of the causation required differs according the nature of the duress".

d. 7-026 "Causation in duress to goods....It seems likely that the victim must show that, "but for" the threat, he would not have entered the contract. We will see that if has been said that this is the appropriate test of causation in economic duress and given the similarity of duress of goods and economic duress, the same test of causation seems appropriate".

d. 7-027 "Adopting a "but for" test would place cases of economic duress on par with cases of negligent or non negligent misrepresentation. This seems appropriate".

g. 7-035 "Independent advice. Likewise in the Pao On case it was said that it is relevant whether or not the victim had independent advice. The relevance of this is perhaps less obvious: access to legal advice, for example, will not increase the range of options available to the victim, and lack of advice therefore cannot be an absolute requirement. However, whether or not the victim appreciated that he had an alternative remedy and what the practical implications of following it would be are relevant to the question of causation".