Monday 15 April 2024
Dear Subscriber,
I hope you had a great weekend. Please see below for the question, the answer to the previous question and associated resources. This is the web version of this newsletter.
Question:
In a civil trial, a dispute arises regarding the quality of construction work performed by a contractor on a commercial building. The claimant, a property management company, alleges that the defendant contractor’s workmanship was substandard, resulting in structural issues and safety concerns. As part of their case, the claimant intends to call an expert witness, Dr. Smith, who has a Ph.D. in civil engineering with extensive experience in building construction and structural analysis. However, the defendant objects to Dr. Smith’s qualifications, arguing that although Dr. Smith is knowledgeable in civil engineering, their expertise does not specifically relate to commercial building construction. Which legal principle governs the admissibility of expert testimony in this scenario?
- The rule against hearsay
- The rule of relevance
- The rule against opinion evidence
- The rule of admissibility
- The rule of proportionality
Top Tip: Need a refresher of the laws of evidence? Watch this podcast for all the basics in less than an hour.
Relevant Reading: For a text with MCQs relevant* to this week’s question see here.
Answer and feedback to last week’s question: Alice, a small business owner, enters into a contract with Bob to purchase inventory for her shop. Bob realizes that Alice is in urgent need of the inventory to fulfil existing client orders and threatens to withhold the delivery of the inventory unless Alice agrees to pay a significantly higher price than originally negotiated. Feeling pressured and fearing the consequences of not receiving the inventory on time, Alice reluctantly agrees to Bob’s demands and signs the contract. Can Alice subsequently rescind the contract with Bob?
- Yes, Alice can rescind the contract with Bob on the grounds of economic duress since a threat to breach a contract is considered illegitimate.
- No, Alice cannot rescind the contract with Bob on the grounds of economic duress since she ultimately agreed to the terms of the contract in writing.
- Yes, Alice can rescind the contract with Bob on the grounds of economic duress since the price demanded by Bob was significantly higher than the market value of the inventory.
- No, Alice cannot rescind the contract with Bob on the grounds of duress since Bob did not engage in physical threats or violence.
- No, Alice cannot rescind the contract with Bob as a threat to breach a contractual obligation is not illegal.
Correct Answer: 1. Yes, Alice can rescind the contract with Bob on the grounds of economic duress since a threat to breach a contract is considered illegitimate. Feedback: In this scenario, Bob’s conduct of exploiting Alice’s urgent need for the inventory to demand a significantly higher price constitutes economic duress. Economic duress occurs when one party to a contract will use an illegitimate threat to obtain an unfair advantage, and the other party feels compelled to agree. Bob’s threat to withhold the delivery of the inventory unless Alice agrees to pay a higher price exploits Alice’s vulnerable position and deprives her of meaningful choice in the transaction. While a threat to breach a contract is not illegal (in the criminal sense), it will be considered illegitimate. Therefore, Alice can rescind the contract with Bob on the grounds of economic duress.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation through our Facebook Group. Feel free to forward this email to anyone you think will benefit.
You will hear from me again soon.
All the best
Dr Ioannis Glinavos
*As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Leave a Reply