delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest man would accept on the other; which are unequitable and unconscientious bargains, and of such even the common law take notice". Duress Physical threats Duress has been defined as a "threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment; esp., a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by another person to a transaction without real volition". An example is in Barton v Armstrong, a decision of the Privy Council. Armstrong threatened to kill Barton if he did not sign a contract, so the court set the contract aside. An innocent party wishing to set aside a contract for duress to the person need only to prove that the threat was made and that it was a reason for entry into the contract; the onus of proof then shifts to the other party to prove that the threat had no effect in causing the party to enter into the contract. There can also be duress to goods and sometimes, the concept of 'economic duress' is used to vitiate contracts. Economic duress The Atlantic Baron or North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd [1979] QB 705 Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers' Federation [1982] 2 All ER 67 Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco [1989] QB 833 CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714, lawful act duress? Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd [1984] EWCA Civ 2, [1983] 1 WLR 87, 94, refusal to waive existing contractual obligations is not duress, because there is no wrongful threat. Consideration Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co. Rep. 117a Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1965] 2 QB 617 Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 Undue influence Undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. The law presumes that in certain classes of special relationship, such as between parent and child, or solicitor and client, there will be a special risk of one party unduly influencing their conduct and motives for