okay a very good review to all of you and i'm recording this channel so we have to know that we are being captured everybody mean to all of you once again so tonight we would like to discuss so first of all we will try and understand and once again i encourage you to still read this is [Music] [Music] we have already made the point that we have already uh noted the point that if you are going to have a contract there should be genuine consent meaning that the parties must have achieved their consent freely and generally nobody has been received into giving the consent and nobody should have been intimidated or threatened giving [Music] and we have seen how certain factors could actually affect validity of this consensus we say we discussed the stigma too long ago and we also just discussed misrepresentation and now we want to discuss [Music] waste a lot of time on it so when we say rest what is it the actual authentic balance to or restraint of the person of a contracting party so where actual balance maybe somebody decided to give you a big slap sign it you are stuck and then you sign or the situation in which i am i cannot stop so when i finish i'll do it for you okay i need to have more i'll finish i'll leave you at night yeah so where someone has actually brought some kind of force against you before you consented then there could be a case of address or where there's we don't have actual violence by the threat of violence just like maybe they run some type of a kidnapping uh you are kidnapped or somebody closely is kidnapped and then they bring documents for you to sign before you i release the person and know that so that is also another form of what the violence we are talking about so puts in other ways the rest is when a person is compelled or wise to enter into a contract by the use of force physical compression or two threats of bodily harm or harm to the property so sometimes it may not just be a threat to owning your business balancing your property as well okay if you don't agree i'm going to blow up your house the way to deflate your cars and things like so it is overcoming of the free will of the party to enter into your contract by causing fear in that battle concern is supposed to be supposed to be free but when you were pushed to say yes then that yes is no journey so that is what we are talking about where a contract is made through risk or where the worst can be established then the contract is not void it is voidable and at this stage who is no who is still not clear concerning their distinction routine void and voidable good you are my friend because you are honest and you know something what is your name please person good i used to have a one minute scorpio so person you alone you are excused from the building of writing the distinction between voidable and boycott so all the rest you have to write it so all the rest you have to write it please don't write it no you have to write what is different between void and voidable contracts i'm giving you one minute those of you who are online you can also put your response in the chat the difference between voice avoidable contracts okay so some of you were able to tell us what a void contract is and what a void of open practice so simply a wide contract is analogous related analytics in the sense that it adopted immediate right to obligation and since it's analogy let me talk about impossibility but i think it's none s it's void just like a nurses a wonderful contract and of course right from the moment that the contract was stopped authority whether we call this one that will be true that participation force you know to choose i had to obey the boy congressman which is invalid from the start they don't understand [Music] is valid for the time being is not valid from review or is binding for the time to respond that way but it can be set aside or appreciated or resented at the instance or at the option of an agreed party a party affected by somebody involved factor avoid contrast in personality you don't need to take any step to predict in value so that is one thing we should note yeah so uh the rest renders a contract avoidable adoption of the party whose content consent was obtained uh under the address so if we look at the case of the barton and armstrong and very old case uh armstrong was the chairman and barton the managing director of the surrounding company i'm strong threatened to have killed if he did not sign an agreement to buy out armstrong's interest in the company on very favorable terms and eventually before the privy council on appeal the both the private council held that the agreement was signed under the rest should be avoided by war so here there was a threat in violence isn't it what are the threats violence that yeah you'll be killed yeah so so if he even agreed to sign it he signed it and uh uh is it not freely he didn't sign it freely now for a long time uh the common law doctrine of dress was limited only to violence and threat of balance with the person but in the 70s the court demonstrated that it will not only threaten violence or violence with the person but also if someone threatens to undermine or breach that can also be addressed so if you look at the case of no opposing shipping compensated against munda foreign their defendants were ship builders they agreed to build a tanker for deployment ship owners and the price was payable in the u.s unless five installments after the first installment had been paid there was a sharp fall in the valley of uzola and the defendants threatened to break the contract unless there are plenty paid extra 10 percent on each of the remaining installments the plaintiffs had already entered into a lucrative contract to charter the tanker on this completion and as she was to take delivery they reluctantly paid the increased installment but they didn't want to miss out on being able to fulfill their opportunity for contracts eight months later they brought an action to recover the excess over the original contract price that's a very similar to dlc builders agreements remember that remember there is against risk very sure for yourself okay that caught help that a contract was avoidable on grants of their community duress but that replenishing could not recover because they had affirmed the contract by failing to protest before they did and in fact i would say that a case which we need to read in addition to uh north ocean uh companies the case of power on against la yulong [Music] uh try and read the full judgments because if you read the full judgment of the power on you'll notice that the entire law on the rest has been nearly discarded by law scammer that is why we need to read that you know there are certain cases you read it and in the end we are reading other cases as well because they are all discussed uh over there and even this battle and armstrong you meet it in a