Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104 (PC)

Facts

  • Barton and Armstrong were major shareholders in a company.
  • Barton agreed to purchase Armstrong’s interest in the company by executing a deed.
  • Barton alleged that Armstrong threatened to murder him if he did not agree to the buyout.
  • At first instance, the trial judge rejected Barton’s claim, finding that commercial necessity was the primary reason for entering the contract, not the threats.

Issues

  1. Whether a contract can be set aside for duress to the person if threats were a factor, but not the sole or primary reason, for entering the agreement.
  2. Whether the burden of proof falls on the person alleged to have made the threats to show that their threats had no effect on the complainant’s decision.
  3. How the standard of causation and burden of proof for duress to the person differs from economic duress and duress to goods.

Decision

  • The Privy Council overturned the trial judge's decision, holding that the threat need only be one reason (not the sole or principal reason) for entering into the contract to establish duress to the person.
  • The burden of proof rests on the party alleged to have made the threats: they must prove their threats contributed nothing to the complainant’s decision.
  • The case distinguished duress to the person from economic duress, noting that economic duress requires a more demanding standard of causation and the burden of proof remains with the party alleging duress.

Legal Principles

  • Duress to the person voids a contract if the threat was a reason, among others, for entering it; the cause need not be predominant.
  • Once a threat is shown to have influenced the decision, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the threat was inconsequential.
  • The standard for causation and proof is less onerous for duress to the person than for economic duress, where the claimant must show the illegitimate pressure was a significant cause.
  • The rationale for this protective approach is the unfairness and seriousness of threats to personal safety.

Conclusion

The Privy Council in Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104 established that contracts entered under threats of violence are voidable if the threats were a factor in the decision, with the burden on the defendant to prove the threats had no effect. This case sets a lower causation threshold for duress to the person than for economic or property duress, strengthening legal protection against coercion involving threats to personal safety.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal