1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Price agreed under duress
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• When Atlas Express used "economic duress" to get a customer to agree a rate increase, it made its contract invalid, ruled Justice Tucker in the High Court last week.
He dismissed a claim by Atlas for £10,970.37 which it alleged was owed under a contract they had with Kafco (Importers and Exporters).
Tucker said that Atlas was aware that Kafco would lose a large contract if it ceased carrying for them, when Kafco signed a contract with revised terms of caniage under protest.
In October 1986 Kafco had obtained a large contract with Woolworth. Atlas agreed to undertake the transport at a rate of 11.10 per carton, with a minimum charge of 17.50 per consignment. After a few weeks it became clear that the price was not viable for Atlas. They knew that Kafco was committed to Woolworth, which would sue Kafco and stop dealing with them if they failed to deliver.
On 17 November Atlas wrote suggesting that Kato) sign an updated agreement. Such an agreement was taken to Kalco's premises the
following day by one of Atlas's drivers, who told them he had been instructed not to carry their goods unless they signed.
Kafco protested and tried to contact the Atlas representative who had negotiated the original contract. He was unavailable, probably deliberately so, said Tucker. Feeling "over a barrel", as it knew at that late stage it could not obtain alternative transport, Kafco signed.
Subsequently, Kafco paid Atlas's invoices at the original rates, arguing that they were not bound by the second agreement because of duress.
Agreeing, Tucker concluded that Kafco's signature on the second agreement had been obtained illegitimately and that the economic duress negated Kafco's apparent consent.