| 单词 | Duress |
| 释义 | 脅迫手段 An act done by one person to another for the purpose of applying pressure or undue persuasion to do something, or refrain or desist from doing something. Duress may take the form of constraint by injury, confinement, or threats. Contract - By applying threat, pressure or compulsion to a person for purpose of obtaining a contractual promise, payment, services, or other benefit. At common law the concept of duress is confined to violence or threat of violence to the person of or imprisonment or threat of imprisonment of the contracting party: Betty Ho Hong Kong Contract Law (1994) p 208. Duress to the person, duress of goods and economics duress are the common categories recognised in law. Under contract law, duress is one of the grounds for a contracting party to claim not to be bound by the contract. The party relying upon duress has to show that the contract entered was subjected to the other party’s actual or threatened violence: Barton v Armstrong [1975] 2 All ER 465, [1976] AC 104 (PC). The threat must amounts to an illegal act, either a crime or a tort. Sometimes it is also known as legal duress. Duress deflects the will of one of the contracting parties, there is still an intention on his part to contract in the apparently consensual terms, the contract procured by duress is therefore not void but voidable at the discretion of the party subject to duress: DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] 1 All ER 913, AC 653 (HL). See also Duress to the person; Duress of goods; Economic duress. Criminal law - The existence of threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary power of human resistance to the doing of acts which would otherwise be criminal: A-G v Whelan [1934] IR 518 (CCA); HKSAR v Buitrago Wing (t/a Kam Bo Real Estate Co) [1998] 3 HKC 113 (CA). Duress provides a defence to a charge of any offence other than murder and treason: R v Howe [1987] AC 417, 1 All ER 771, 85 Cr App Rep 32 (HL); Lai Kit v R (1946) 31 HKLR. A threat of such harm to another may suffice but a threat to property is not sufficient to constitute duress: R v Hurley and Murray [1967] VR 526, Vict FC; R v M‘Growther (1746) 18 State Tr 391. See also Compulsion; Necessity; Undue Influence. Equity - The use of illegitimate pressure to influence one’s decision to enter into a transaction. Where a party to a transaction enters into it under duress in the strict sense, that is whether he is compelled to it by bodily restraint or fear of bodily harm, the transaction is voidable at law. Duress is a coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent: Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] HKLR 225, [1980] AC 614 (PC). In that case, the transaction will be set aside in equity: Hawes v Wyatt (1790) 3 Bro CC 156. To avoid the transaction it is sufficient that there were such circumstances of pressure, including commercial or domestic pressure: Pao On v Lau Yiu Long, supra. Justice requires parties to an arm’s length bargain to show the existence of duress so as to vitiate the transaction resulted from their bargain: Credit Base (HK) Ltd v BBDO Hong Kong Ltd [1994] HKLY 241. See also Compulsion; Fraud; Undue influence; Unjust enrichment. Family law - Compulsion by fear to adopt a course of action. If a party enters into a marriage through duress that marriage is voidable: Szechter v Szechter [1970] 3 All ER 905, [1971] 2 WLR 170. The legal effect of duress does not render the divorce agreement a nullity but the divorce agreement is at most voidable at the suit of the respondent, the divorce agreement remained a valid agreement until it had been avoided: Lee Cheuk v Siu Wai Kin [1946-1972] HKC 118 (CA). Succession - Any provisions in a will obtained by putting the testator under duress will be deemed invalid, subject to proof of duress: Mellows, The Law of Succession (5th Ed, Butterworths) pp 53-55. See also Sound disposing mind; Threat; Undue influence. Tort - The compulsion under which a person acts through fear of personal suffering, as from injury to the body or from confinement, actual or threatened: Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed) Vol 8 p 84. Where a party to a transaction enters into it under duress in the strict sense, that is, where he is compelled to it by bodily restraint or fear of bodily harm, the transaction is voidable at law, and in that case it will, be set aside in equity. Relief is also granted in equity where the compulsion is not of this extreme nature, however, and to avoid the transaction it is sufficient that there were such circumstances of pressure as to prevent the party from being a free agent. Similarly, where a transaction is voidable, a confirmation of it procured by terror is of no effect: Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed) Vol 14 p 479. Duress must be a question of degree, and may begin from a gentle form of pressure, to physical violence, accompanied by threats of death: Griffiths v Griffiths [1944] IR 35; H (Otherwise D) v H [1953] 2 All ER 1229. Consent obtained by duress affords no defence to tortious contact, if the will of the consenting party was overpowered by force or the fear of violence, but the fact that the claimant submitted to what was done in the mistaken belief that the defendant had a right to do it has been held not to nullify her consent: Latter v Braddell (1881) 44 LT 369 (CA); Freeman v Home Office (No 2) [1984] QB 524, 1 All ER 1036 (CA). See also Battery. 由某人對另一人作出的作為，目的是施加壓力或不當游說以作出某事情，或避免或停止作出某事情。脅迫手段可透過傷害、囚禁或威脅產生。 合約 - 為取得合約承諾、繳付、服務或其他利益的目的而向他人施加恐嚇、壓力或強制力。在普通法下，威脅的概念只限於對締約方的人身施加的暴力或暴力威脅；或禁錮或禁錮威脅：Betty Ho Hong Kong Contract Law （1994年） 第 208頁。人身威脅、貨品威脅及經濟威脅是法律上承認的普遍威脅類別。按照合約法，威脅是締約方可申索不受有關合約約束的其中一項理由。倚賴威脅的一方須證明有關的合約在訂立時是受到另一方的實際或威脅的暴力影響：Barton v Armstrong [1975] 2 All ER 465, [1976] AC 104 （樞密院）。威脅須構成非法行為（罪行或侵權行為）。有時亦稱為「合法威脅」。儘管威脅會改變締約一方的意願，但該方仍有意圖訂立表面上經雙方同意而成立的條款，因此，以威脅促致的合約並非無效，而是受威脅的一方可酌情決定有關的合約是否可使無效：DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] 1 All ER 913, AC 653 （上議院）。另見 Duress to the person; Duress of goods; Economic duress。 刑法 - 會遭受即時死亡或嚴重身體暴力侵犯的威脅的可能性極高，以致會壓倒平常人擁有的自制能力作出刑事行為：A-G v Whelan [1934] IR 518 （刑事上訴法院）；HKSAR v Buitrago Wing (t/a Kam Bo Real Estate Co) [1998] 3 HKC 113 （上訴法庭）。除謀殺和叛逆罪之外，威脅可作為任何罪行的檢控的免責辯護：R v Howe [1987] AC 417, 1 All ER 771, 85 Cr App Rep 32 （上議院）；Lai Kit v R (1946) 31 HKLR。向他人作出傷害的威脅已足夠，但對財產的威脅則不足以構成威脅：R v Hurley and Murray [1967] VR 526, Vict FC；R v M‘Growther (1746) 18 State Tr 391。另見 Compulsion; Necessity; Undue Influence。 衡平法 - 使用非法的壓力以影響其參與交易的決定。凡交易一方是在狹義的威脅下參與該宗交易，即該方是否在受人身束縛或身體傷害恐懼下被迫參與該宗交易，則該宗交易在法律上可使無效。威脅指強迫意願，因此會使同意成為無效：Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] HKLR 225, [1980] AC 614 （樞密院）。在此等情況下，衡平法會將該宗交易宣告無效：Hawes v Wyatt (1790) 3 Bro CC 156。如能證明有該等壓力（包括商業上或家庭上的壓力）的情況，已足以免除有關交易：Pao On v Lau Yiu Long, 見上文。在公正原則下，基於各自獨立利益而作出交易的一方須證明威脅的存在，以使該宗買賣所引起的交易成為無效：Credit Base (HK) Ltd v BBDO Hong Kong Ltd [1994] HKLY 241。另見 Compulsion; Fraud; Undue influence; Unjust enrichment。 家庭法 - 恐嚇作出某行動過程的強制力。如一方由於受威脅而締結婚姻，則有關的婚姻可使無效：Szechter v Szechter [1970] 3 All ER 905, [1971] 2 WLR 170。威脅在法律上的影響不會令致離婚協議無效，但有關的離婚協議在答辯人提出訴訟的情況下可使無效，該離婚協議會持續有效，直至被免除為止：Lee Cheuk v Siu Wai Kin [1946-1972] HKC 118（上訴法庭）。 繼承 - 在使立遺囑人受威脅的情況下取得的任何遺囑條文會被當作無效，但須證明威脅的存在：Mellows, The Law of Succession （第5版, Butterworths） 第 53至55頁。另見 Sound disposing mind; Threat; Undue influence。 侵權 - 在此等強制力下，個人因恐懼蒙受傷害（包括實際的或威脅的身體傷害或禁閉）而的恐懼所威迫：Halsbury’s Laws of England （第3版）第8冊第 84頁。凡交易一方是在狹義的威脅下參與該宗交易，即該方是否在受人身束縛或身體傷害恐懼下被迫參與該宗交易，則該宗交易在法律上可使無效，而在該等情況下，衡平法會將該宗交易宣告無效。凡該等強制力不屬上述的極端性質，則據衡平法可給予濟助；但凡能證明有令致一方無法以自由代理人的身分行事的壓力情況存在，則已足以免除該宗交易。同樣地，凡某宗交易可使無效，則以令人恐懼的手段取得的交易確認無效：Halsbury’s Laws of England （第3版）第14冊第479頁。威脅須是程度上的問題，並可以溫和的壓力形式展開，繼而變成人身暴力及死亡恐嚇的威脅：Griffiths v Griffiths [1944] IR 35；H (Otherwise D) v H [1953] 2 All ER 1229。如同意的一方的意願是受到武力的影響或由於恐懼暴力所致，則以威脅手段取得的同意不能作為侵權接觸的免責辯護；但法院已裁定，如申索人屈服於其誤以為被告人有權如此作出的行為，則此等事實不足以令其同意成為無效：Latter v Braddell (1881) 44 LT 369（英國上訴法院）；Freeman v Home Office (No 2) [1984] QB 524, 1 All ER 1036 （芵國上訴法院）。另見 Battery。n. |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。