Opel v Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3205 (QB)

Facts

  • Opel and Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd were parties to a supply agreement concerning essential automotive components.
  • A dispute arose when Mitras threatened to cease supplying components critical to Opel’s operations.
  • Opel alleged that this threat amounted to economic duress, contending it was left with no practical alternatives.
  • The court examined whether Mitras’s conduct constituted illegitimate pressure in the context of commercial supply chain negotiations.
  • The judgment explored whether Opel had access to alternative suppliers or feasible legal remedies as potential courses of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the pressure exerted by Mitras on Opel constituted illegitimate pressure amounting to economic duress.
  2. Whether the distinction between permissible commercial negotiation and unlawful coercion was properly applied.
  3. Whether a causal link existed between Mitras’s threat and Opel’s decision to agree to the contractual terms.
  4. Whether Opel had any practical alternatives to submitting to Mitras’s demands.

Decision

  • The court analyzed the nature of Mitras’s threat to cease supply and considered if it amounted to illegitimate economic pressure or legitimate negotiation.
  • It determined that the threat of breaching an existing contract could, in some circumstances, amount to illegitimate pressure for the purposes of economic duress.
  • The court found that merely asserting contractual rights, while potentially placing the other party in a difficult position, would not automatically amount to duress.
  • The judgment emphasized that the presence or absence of practical alternatives for Opel was a significant factor in the analysis.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of economic duress protects against contracts formed through illegitimate economic pressure.
  • Illegitimate pressure may include threats to breach contract, but demanding a contractual right alone does not necessarily constitute duress.
  • A valid claim for economic duress requires showing (a) illegitimate pressure, (b) absence of reasonable alternatives, and (c) a causal link between the pressure and the contract.
  • Contracts made under illegitimate pressure are voidable at the instance of the aggrieved party.
  • The court must scrutinize specific facts, including the reasonableness of demands and potential alternative options, to assess economic duress.

Conclusion

Opel v Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3205 (QB) clarifies the doctrine of economic duress in supply chain relationships, establishing that distinguishing between legitimate commercial pressure and unlawful coercion is fact-specific and that contracts formed under illegitimate pressure may be set aside.

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