The Doctrine of Lawful Act Financial Duress: Will the PIAC Choice Impression Voidable Contracts in India?

By Vallari Dronamraju, Closing Yr Scholar at Nationwide College of Superior Authorized Research, Kochi


Coercion in Indian legislation that renders an settlement voidable, is taken into account as duress in English legislation.. In English legislation, a contract could also be voidable on the identical grounds as India (coercion, undue affect, fraud or misrepresentation) and put aside because the mistaken was a part of the method by which the sufferer’s consent was taken. The doctrine of duress will probably be relevant right here, the place one celebration threatens one other celebration with a requirement to be complied with and the threatened celebration accedes to this and enters into the contract. Nonetheless, if the demand of the threatening celebration is illegal (duress to particular person, items, threatened breach of contract, or future[i] illegal act), the contract could also be put aside. Additional, the doctrine of lawful act financial duress is a risk of significant monetary penalties, that provides the threatened celebration no sensible selection however to enter into the stated contract.

On 19th August 2021, the UK Supreme Courtroom (SC) in Pakistan Worldwide Airline Company v. Occasions Journey Restricted (“PIAC Choice”), a landmark judgement, dominated that below the doctrine of lawful act financial duress, except the situation for a contract is in unhealthy religion, the contract won’t be deemed to be invalid. The writer on this article goals to discover the idea of lawful act financial duress and the circumstances that result in a voidable contract within the context of the PIAC determination and the Indian contractual construction of financial duress.

The English Regulation on Voidable Contracts

English business legislation goals to encourage honest alternate between events. Underneath this, financial duress as a defence in a contract renders it voidable when a celebration exerts illegitimate strain on one other celebration, whereby the threatened celebration has no selection however to conform. There isn’t a specific precept that’s opposite to recognising financial duress as an element for a voidable contract, offered that the foundation of such a recognition quantities to coercion of will, vitiating consent. It’s obligatory that the contract entered into, or fee made isn’t a voluntary act.

Additional, within the case of CTN Money and Carry Restricted v. Gallagher Restricted, the Courtroom of Attraction held that in a purely business contract, lawful act duress is tough to determine particularly if the defendant has acted in good religion. It additionally noticed that there might be a future risk of lawful act duress in a business sense and that threatened withdrawal of future credit score was not duress. But, this launched an undesirable factor of ambiguity in business bargaining processes. This level of legislation was later clarified within the PIAC determination.

The Major Issues of the PIAC Choice

The factual matrix of the case of 2019, i.e., Occasions Journey Restricted v. Pakistan Worldwide Airways Company (Attraction), entails the business contract between the claimant, a journey agent (Company) that offered excursions to Pakistan, and the defendant, Pakistan Worldwide Airways Company (PIAC). The Company’s enterprise relied on an company settlement with PIAC which was on the time the only operator of direct flights between the UK and Pakistan. These events have been buying and selling below the settlement that offered that the Airline pay a flat fee of fee on gross sales by the Company, which the Company claimed that PIAC owed between 2009 and 2012.

In 2012, PIAC served a discover to the Company that terminated the settlement and diminished the allotted variety of tickets by 80%. The Company was subsequently introduced an settlement which when complied with, would enhance ticket allocation considerably however the declare of the beforehand unpaid fee could be waived. By agreeing to the phrases of the brand new settlement, the Company’s ticket allocation was restored, nonetheless, it initiated its declare for unpaid fee on the grounds of financial duress. The Courtroom of First Occasion determined in favour of the Company and noticed that PIAC had acted illegitimately.

The Courtroom of Appeals held {that a} risk made in good religion by an organization wouldn’t represent illegitimate strain for financial duress, even when the risk was probably cheap or if the particular person is entitled to take action in good religion. For the act to be invalid and illegal, there have to be deliberate wrongdoing or an illegitimate motion that would come with an act that’s morally or socially unacceptable.

The Company took this determination to the SC, but it surely unanimously upheld the choice of the Courtroom of Attraction. The SC laid down three parts to be established for a claimant to rescind a contract on the grounds of financial duress together with illegitimate risk, ample causation, and that the threatened celebration had no cheap different apart from giving in to the risk. If the risk is lawful, the illegitimacy have to be decided by trying into the intention and justification of the demand. Along with this, the SC went on to carry observe that the boundaries of the doctrine of lawful act duress usually are not restricted and the courts ought to strategy any growth with warning.

The Doctrine of Financial Duress in India and Voidable Contracts

Part 10 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 determines the constituents of a legitimate contract that features free consent. Free consent as expressly offered in Chapter II of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 (“Act”) doesn’t explicitly present for financial duress as a vitiating issue however could be understood as an invalidating issue via liberal interpretation. Part 13 and 14 of the Act outline consent and free consent respectively. Part 19 of the Act explains the elements resulting in voidability of agreements with out free consent, which embrace coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, and Part 19A makes an settlement that has been brought on by undue affect, voidable.

Additional, the SC within the PIAC determination noticed {that a} demand that’s motivated by business self-interest is justified. Within the Indian case of Dai-ichi Karkaria Non-public Ltd., Bombay v. Oil and Pure Gasoline Fee Bombay and Ors., the courtroom dominated that enterprise compulsion would quantity to financial strain if two components have been fulfilled, i.e., strain resulting in adjustments within the will of the sufferer and the illegitimacy of the exerted strain. Financial duress is, due to this fact, the mixture of illegitimate strain and the absence of sensible selection. The existence of actual and obvious authority and the unequal positioning of the events are crucial to determine the existence of duress. Thus, in India, a contract that’s affected by lawful act financial duress will probably be voidable. Nonetheless, India doesn’t have a judicial determination at current on whether or not a lawful or illegal act of financial duress in particular, will have an effect on the validity of a contract.

Impression on the Contractual Surroundings in India and UK

Via Indian selections and the PIAC determination, it’s clear that the legislation of financial duress acts as a floor for treating contracts voidable. It’s intriguing to notice that, Indian courts have again and again referred to widespread legislation selections to find out social, financial, governance, and contractual points. In Central Inland Water Transport Company Ltd. v. Brojo Nath, a number of widespread legislation instances have been accepted, and it was acknowledged that Courts in England recognised the potential for an unconscionable cut price which that might be led to by financial duress between events who’ve totally different financial statuses.


It’s evident that the courts in India and UK have based mostly their opinions on the consent of the events the place the doctrine of lawful act is prolonged to financial duress. The Indian courts have interpreted the clause of financial duress by making such agreements voidable. The UK courts went a step forward with the PIAC determination whereby a slender strategy was launched whereby provided that a mala-fide intent is noticed within the situation that has been imposed by the contract, then it might be thought-about void. It will be fascinating to see if the Indian courts undertake the finer strategy of the UK courts or a wider understanding via the judicial selections which have been beforehand awarded in India. The PIAC determination will thus pave the way in which for a progressive mechanism within the doctrine of financial duress, by making it narrower in implementation. The voidability of contracts in UK and India will see a modification within the contractual obligations and consent given by events, thus giving the judicial system intricate issues while deciding the validity of a contract.

[i] Chitty on Contracts, Candy & Maxwell, 30th Ed., p. 7-37 (2011).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.