Contract; vitiating circumstances; duress; threats of physical harm.
Facts: Barton purchased shares in a company from Armstrong. Barton then tried to avoid the contract, saying that he had bought the shares because Armstrong had threatened the life and safety of himself and his family. It was proved that the alleged threats had been made, but the court found that Barton also had business reasons for buying the shares.
Issue: Could the contract be set aside on grounds of duress even though the threats made were not the only reason for entering into the transaction?
Decision: On appeal, the Privy Council held that the threats had contributed to Barton's decision to enter into the contract. This was sufficient for the contract to be set aside as void.
Reason: Once Barton had proved that Armstrong had made the threats, the onus was upon Armstrong to show that the threats had not contributed to Barton's decision to enter the contract. The court found that even though there were other reasons for agreeing to buy the shares, Armstrong had been unable to show that his threats had not contributed to Barton's decision. Barton could therefore avoid the contract if he wished.