The case of Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco Importers and Distributors Ltd [1989] QB 833 explores the legal concept of economic duress within contract law. This case is particularly instructive for law students studying the boundaries between legitimate commercial pressure and illegitimate coercion, providing a clear example of how economic duress can affect the validity of contractual agreements.

  • In the case of Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] Q.B. 833, it was held that where a party to a contract is forced by economic pressure to renegotiate the terms of the contract, their consent may be invalid for duress.

Facts of the Case Atlas Express v Kafco

  • C, a national road carrier, entered into a contract with D to transport D’s imported basket ware to a national chain of retailers.
  • The manager of C’s local depot gave D a carriage rate which the parties agreed to in writing on 20th October 1986. The contract would last until 31st May 1987.
  • On 14th November 1986, C’s manager attempted to persuade D to provide for a £440 minimum charge per carriage-load but was unsuccessful.
  • 4 days later, C sent to D an empty trailer with the message that unless D made a new agreement incorporating the £440 charge, the trailer would drive away unloaded.
  • D’s representative, believing that they could not arrange alternative carriage soon and that breaching their contract with the retailers would be ruinous, signed the new agreement.
  • C delivered D’s cartons until 29th December 1986. On 2nd February 1987, D sent them £10,000 ‘on account.’
  • On 2nd March, D’s solicitors wrote to C, alleging that the new agreement had been signed under duress.
  • C brought an action to recover money due by reason of the incorporated carriage charge.

Issues in Atlas Express v Kafco

  • Had D signed the new agreement under duress, even though they had honoured it?

Held by the Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court)

  • Finding for D, that C’s conduct amounted to illegitimate economic pressure. D felt in the circumstances that they had no choice but to sign the new agreement, which had terms they had previously rejected. C provided no consideration for the agreement as D was placed in a financially less favourable position. D’s consent was vitiated for economic duress and the contract was voidable.

Tucker J.

  • C’s manager had seen an adequate sample of D’s goods in order to make an accurate quote for the carriage rate. It may be that he mistakenly believed he could fit more goods into a trailer than was actually possible, but D did not mislead him into providing a fixed rate that was disadvantageous.
  • D’s attempts to contact C’s manager when faced with the new demand failed because the manager was, in all likelihood deliberately, unavailable. D reasonably believed that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate with another contractor in time. D did not regard this as a genuine renegotiation and did not consider the agreement binding. That view was fully justified.
  • Economic duress must be distinguished from commercial pressure, which is not sufficient to vitiate consent. The borderline between the two may in some cases be indistinct, but in appropriate cases economic duress may afford a defence. A number of English cases have acknowledged this concept.
  • In particular, Lord Scarman in Pao v Lau Yiu Long [1980] clearly indicated recognition of the concept at pp. 635.
  • “Duress, whatever form it takes, is a coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent. Their Lordships agree…that in a contractual situation commercial pressure is not enough. There must be present some factor ‘which could in law be regarded as a coercion of his will so as to vitiate his consent’…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…are relevant in determining whether he acted voluntarily or not” [839E].
  • In this case, D’s apparent consent was induced by illegitimate pressure that was not approbated. This pressure can be property described as economic duress, which in the circumstances vitiates D’s apparent consent. In any event, there was no consideration for the new agreement. C were already obliged to deliver D’s goods at mutually agreed rates. Accordingly, C’s claim fails, and there will be judgment for D with costs.

Significance of the Case on the Development of the Law

The Atlas Express v Kafco case significantly impacted the understanding and application of economic duress in contract law:

  1. North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705: Illustrated that economic duress could avoid a contract but also highlighted the importance of timely action in asserting duress.
  2. Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614: This case established that for pressure to constitute duress, it must be illegitimate and the agreement must be entered into as a result of that pressure.
  3. DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] BLR 530: Confirmed that not all commercial pressures constitute duress, focusing on the need for illegitimate pressure that leaves no reasonable alternative but to agree.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below, you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.

What are the specific criteria used to differentiate between lawful commercial pressure and economic duress?

In UK law, the differentiation between lawful commercial pressure and economic duress hinges on the legitimacy of the pressure applied. As established in cases like Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco Importers and Distributors Ltd and further explained in DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA, the pressure must be illegitimate and leave no reasonable alternative but to accede to it. This includes threats to break a contract where no good faith belief in the claim exists (Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104). Lawful commercial pressure, conversely, involves normal negotiations where parties may exert pressure but stop short of illegitimate threats.

How has the doctrine of economic duress evolved in UK law following this judgment?

Since the Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco decision, the doctrine of economic duress has evolved to include a broader range of situations beyond just physical or unlawful threats. The key development is the recognition that economic pressure can vitiate consent if it involves coercion that deprives the victim of their agency or voluntary action. This evolution was underscored in CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994], where refusal to supply goods unless past debts were cleared was not considered duress since it was seen as a commercial stance. The courts continue to refine the distinction between hard bargaining and coercion.

What implications does this ruling have for small businesses dealing with larger corporations?

The implications of the ruling in Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco for small businesses are significant, as it provides a legal basis to contest contracts that were agreed upon under undue pressure from more dominant commercial partners. This ruling empowers smaller entities to challenge contract terms that were imposed unfairly, promoting a more balanced commercial playing field. It serves as a caution to larger corporations about the limits of their negotiating power, ensuring they do not abuse their position to coerce unfair terms from smaller businesses. This case acts as a safeguard for fair commercial practice, emphasizing the need for contracts to be entered into without compulsion.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.