Question

The workers at Nika’s Nail & Beauty Bar, Dan and Sam, have been pestering Nika for weeks about getting an increase in their hourly rate. Nika repeatedly explains to Dan and Sam that she cannot agree to a pay rise without first speaking to her accountant, and that she will not have time to do so until the end of the month. Dan and Sam are becoming increasingly frustrated with Nika’s refusal to consider their request. One Friday evening, during the busiest part of the shift, Dan and Sam confront Nika and tell her that unless she agrees to increase their hourly rate by $5 per hour, they are going to walk out, leaving her to serve the customers on her own. Nika has no choice but to agree to their request. She promises to adjust their pay as requested.

Is Nika legally obliged to keep her promise? Focus upon whether or not Dan and Sam have engaged in duress. You must use relevant cases to support your answer.

Answer 1

No, Nika will not be legally obliged to keep her promise. This is because law provides that duress makes a contract voidable. Law states that duress is a means by which a person or a party will be or can be released from a contract in case that person (or that party) has been either forced in any manner or has been coerced in any manner to get into the contract.

In this case Nika’s oral promise to increase the hourly rate by $5 per hour was obtained after threatening her with the statement that Dan and Sam will walk out if their pay is not increased as per their demand. Thus Dan and Sam have indeed engaged in duress and their threat had left no choice with Nika, at that time, but to agree and give in to their demands.

Cases like Griffin v Griffin points out that the threat has to be of some significance and should cause a threat to the economic interest of the affected party. Here if Dan and Sam would have walked out, like they had threatened to do, Nika’s business would have been hit. In Griffin v Griffin a young man was forced into marrying a girl after he was threatened with imprisonment and with the possible situation that he and his father would lose their jobs if he did not marry the girl. The court, on trial, held that the marriage was void for duress.