Facts: Armstrong was the chairman and largest shareholder of a public company and Barton was the managing director of that company. Barton began to resent Armstrong’s interference in the management of the company. With the assistance of two other directors, Barton forced the removal of Armstrong as chairman. In order to achieve the total removal of Armstrong from the company, Barton agreed to pay $140,000 in Australian dollars, cash, to Armstrong. Barton alleged that Armstrong had extorted the sums of money on the basis of duress. He alleged that Armstrong had, inter alia, uttered threats to kill Barton, made threatening phone calls, and caused Barton a genuine belief that Armstrong had hired a contract-killer to terminate him. Further to this, Barton also alleged that Armstrong had phoned Barton at his office saying: ‘You had better sign this agreement – or else.’ The case was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Board agreed that on the evidence it was clear that Armstrong had threatened Barton.
Answer
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104
Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: Armstrong was the chairman and largest shareholder of a public company and Barton was the managing director of that company. Barton began to resent Armstrong’s interference in the management of the company. With the assistance of two other directors, Barton forced the removal of Armstrong as chairman. In order to achieve the total removal of Armstrong from the company, Barton agreed to pay $140,000 in Australian dollars, cash, to Armstrong. Barton alleged that Armstrong had extorted the sums of money on the basis of duress. He alleged that Armstrong had, inter alia, uttered threats to kill Barton, made threatening phone calls, and caused Barton a genuine belief that Armstrong had hired a contract-killer to terminate him. Further to this, Barton also alleged that Armstrong had phoned Barton at his office saying: ‘You had better sign this agreement – or else.’ The case was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Board agreed that on the evidence it was clear that Armstrong had threatened Barton.
Answer
?
Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: Armstrong was the chairman and largest shareholder of a public company and Barton was the managing director of that company. Barton began to resent Armstrong’s interference in the management of the company. With the assistance of two other directors, Barton forced the removal of Armstrong as chairman. In order to achieve the total removal of Armstrong from the company, Barton agreed to pay $140,000 in Australian dollars, cash, to Armstrong. Barton alleged that Armstrong had extorted the sums of money on the basis of duress. He alleged that Armstrong had, inter alia, uttered threats to kill Barton, made threatening phone calls, and caused Barton a genuine belief that Armstrong had hired a contract-killer to terminate him. Further to this, Barton also alleged that Armstrong had phoned Barton at his office saying: ‘You had better sign this agreement – or else.’ The case was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Board agreed that on the evidence it was clear that Armstrong had threatened Barton.
Answer
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104
Facts: Armstrong was the chairman and largest shareholder of a public company and Barton was the managing director of that company. Barton began to resent Armstrong’s interference in the
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.