English contract law has based its fundamental doctrine of existence on the idea of ​​voluntariness and freedom of choice. It is often said that a contract which does not have such a choice was obtained under some form of duress. The only problem with this analogy is that, to some extent, most contracts are made under duress. A constraint that is inevitable. Companies often enjoy a monopoly, like utilities such as gas, electricity and water, where freedom of choice is non-existent. What distinguishes this from actionable duress is the courts' interpretation of the legality of the duress. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get the original essayThe compulsion that is illegal at common law has evolved into three main areas over the past twenty years, but for much of its previous existence it was defined on very narrow lines. Constraint on the person, a long-established principle, involved either threats or actual violence against the co-contractor. The act of violence must be illegal but does not have to be the main or only reason why the contract was entered into. It is up to the defense to prove that such threats made no contribution to the will of the other parties. It should be emphasized that the act must be illegal, so a threat of prosecution would be justified if true. The principles of personal duress were set out in a Privy Council case Barton-v-Armstrong which, although not constituting a binding precedent, would be persuasive to the courts. This case did not answer the question of coercion towards a third party. Here we can examine the principles of criminal law which appear to suggest in Rv-Howe that a defense of third party duress is possible, but only depending on the facts of each individual case. The offense of intimidation may constitute grounds for compensation in this area. The criminal law of blackmail could promote the equitable principle that no one should benefit from their own wrongdoing. The question of whether the contract is void or voidable still rages without clear authority. Pao On-v-Lau Yiu Long suggests that it is voidable, thus giving good title to a bona fide third party which must be more satisfactory to innocent buyers. The idea that the contracting party must be free to act when entering into a contract is universally approved and only the degree of coercion warrants legal debate. It will be up to the courts to decide this question on a case-by-case basis. Duress on the person has stood the test of time and is a fundamentally sound approach to contract law. Personal restraint is unlikely to become a growing profession for lawyers, mainly due to its unsubtle approach, with the use of other forms of restraint emerging in modern society. Duress on property has had a somewhat choppy approach in the common law. . Goff and Jones in The Law of Restitution (1966) identified four areas of constraint. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a personalized essay. The person's constraint divided into two categories, money or goods (or services) paid on the spot and money or goods requested in the future. The first being where the money or property was recoverable, the second being a defense against :