← Κύπρος

clr/1987/1987_1_564.pdf

(1987)1987 December 10 IP1K1S J ) 1 EMMANOUELSIDIROPOULOS, PlaintiffinAction 213/82, 2 DEMETRIOSTZANETOS, PlaintiffinAction 216/82, ν THE SHIP«PANAGIAMYRTIDIOT1SSA» NOW LYING AT THE PORT OF LIMASSOL, Defendant (ConsolidatedAdmiraltyActionsNos 213/82& 216/82) Contract—Consideration — The Contract Law, Cap 149,section25
(1)and
(2)— The rule thatconsideration mustmove from thepromisee — Industnal action leading to new agreementproviding forincreasedremuneration of employee for the same services as those under the old agreement — The new agreement will now be sustained under common law — In any event, in Cyprus thequestion isinextricably connected with Art 27 of the Constitution, safeguarding the freedom to stnke — Return to work is sufficient consideration for improved remuneration 5 Contract — Duress — The Contract Law, Cap 149,section 15 — Scope of— It does not cover threats to businessor trade — Stnke action in support of a 1 0 claim for improved pay — In any event, and in view of Art 27 of the Constitution, such action cannot be considered as an illegitimate form of pressure By an agreement made on 25 9 82theplaintiffscontractedtoserve aboard the defendant ship fora penodofsevenmonths On 1 1182 theship amved 1 5 at the Swedish port of Udevella On her arrival the vessel was boarded by officials of the International Transport Federation (ITF), an international federation of transportworkers, who, having foundthat the remuneration of thecrew was insufficient,directedthatallloadingworkbesuspendedpending negotiations with the owners, conductedon their behalf by the Captain and 2 0 other representatives The plaintiffs and fellow workers stopped work pending the outcome of the intervention of ITF The negotiations were successful 564 1 C.L.R. 5 10 " 15 2\J 25 >JU 35 40 SIdiropoulos v. Ship Panayia Myrtidlotlssa On4thNovember, 1982newagreementswereexecutedbetween seamen and the Captain, acting on behalf of the owners, providing for a substantial increase ofthe salanesoftheseamen. Inaddition, theownerswere required to pay US$10,293 - into an ITFfund for the welfare of seamen. The new agreements replacedandsuperseded theagreementsofthe25th September
  1. Not only the agreements were signed bythe Captain without protest, butthedifference intheremuneration ofseamenbetweenthefirstandsecond agreements waspaid to them pursuant to the terms of the newagreements. Onthesameorthe following dayworkwasresumed Upon arrivaloftheshipinCyprustheagentsofthedefendant dismissedthe plaintiffs andrefused topaythemtheremunerationandbenefitstowhichthey were entitled to by the agreements of 4th November
  2. Asa result the plaintiffs filed the present actions, claiming arrears of salary for the penod between 4th November and 27th November 1982, leave allowance for the penod between 23rd September to 28th November,
  3. overtime allowance, remuneration for services rendered on the days when plaintiffs wereon leaveand damages forwrongful dismissal. The central legal issue in these proceedings is the validity of the second agreement of 4.11.
  4. In this respect, the defendant submitted that the agreements were invalidfor threereasons. Lack of necessary certainty of the termsoftheagreement, stemming from the incorporation of the collective agreement of ITF into the terms and • conditionsofthecontract. Lackofconsideration movingfrom thepromisees. Plaintiffs gave noconsideration fortheadditional benefits conferred thereby, asthey were bound bytheagreementsof 25th September, 1982,toprovide exactly the same services Coercion resulting from the economic duress applied by ITFneutralizing thefreedom of thedefendant to contract asthey chose, for fear of theeconomicconsequenceslikelytobefall themfrom any prolongation ofthestoppage ofwork. Held,
(1)The agreement here under consideration conformed with the statutory norms of certainty with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of seamen. Moreover, it was possible at any one time to ascertain withcertaintytherightsandobligations oftheparties thereunder.
(2)Section 25
(1)of the Contract Law (Cap 149) provides that an agreement made without consideration isvoid, unlessitfalls intoanyoneof the three exceptions enumerated thereunder. However, s. 2of the Contract Law provides that expressions used in our statute, not otherwise defined, must be presumed tohave themeaningattached tothem inEnglishlawand be construed accordingly The notion of consideration under English law requiresthatconsideration should movefrom the promisee. However defendant's argument overlooksthe implicationsof novationof contractontheonehandandthelegitimacyofindustrialactionasanagentfor 565 Sidlropoulos v. Ship Panayia Myrtidiotissa
(1987)the substitution of industrially unacceptable agreements on the other. Substitution orvenation of theterms of an agreement as a result of industnal action is nolonger examined, as can be deduced from thejudgment, from a straight angle of consideration, but from a broader perspective associated with the achievement of harmony and justice in industnal relations Therefore, if the parties freely enter intoan agreement replacing an old one intendingtobe boundthereby contractually theagreement willbe sustained. unless the consent of either is not a voluntary expression of willingness to enter intothe agreement. 5 In Cyprus substitution orvariation of a contractof employment as a result 1() of industrialactioncannotbedivorced orextncatedfrom theprovisions ofArt. 27 of the Constitution safeguarding freedom to strike as a fundamental and inalienable humannght Once itisappreciated thata worker can,as of nght. withhold his labour for theimprovement of his remuneration,return towork asaresultof animprovedoffer for remunerationissufficient considerationfor 1.} the validation of the agreement. Strike action pursued in support of a claim for improved pay cannot in Cyprus be considered asan illegitimate form of pressure, inviewof Art 27 1 of theConstitutionsafeguarding such actionas afundamental human nght. Inany event, contractsresulting from theapplication of economicduress. are not void, but voidable. The contract can not be avoided after an act of affirmation. 20 No act of confirmation could be clearer than the action of the defendant in this case, arising from the payment of salariesof seamen according tothe agreement of 4th November 1982. 25 In Cyprus coercion isdefined by s. 15 of theContractLaw Cap. 149, and although coercion is not merely modelled on threats to life and limb, but extends to the unlawful detaining or threats to detain property, it does not extend tothreatstobusiness ortrade.Moreimportantly,threatstolifeorlimb must constitute a criminal act under the CriminalCode,whereas inthe case M) of detention of property again the act must be unlawful in law. None of the actscomplained of inthiscase falls intoanyof thecategories of actsthatmay found coercion undertheCyprus Contract Law. Judgment for theplaintiffs withcosts.Counterclaim dismissedwith costs. Casesreferredto: Pan On v.Uu Yiu [1979)3 All E.R.65; 566 ΆΓ) 1 C.L.R. Sidiropoulos v.Ship Panayia Myrtidiotissa New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v.A Μ Satterthwaite andCo. Ltd.
(1974)1 AI1ER.
  1. Universe Tanksh,psν l.T.F.[19821 2All Ε R 67: Barton ν Armstrong [19751 2All ΕR
  2. ^ North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. ν Hyundai Construction Co Ltd. and Another [1978]3All Ε R. 1170 Alec Coll(Garages) Ltd and Othersv. TotalOil G Β Ltd.[1985] 1All Ε R
  3. Lamamgnere[19751 3 All ΕR 801: 10 Williamsand Glyn's Bank Pic. v. Kou/oumojs
(1986)1C L.R
  1. Admiralty actions. Admiralty actions for alleged breaches by defendants of the agreements of the 4th November, 1982 which include arrears of salary, leave allowance, overtime allowances, remuneration for 15 services rendered on the days plaintiffs were on leave and damages for wrongful dismissal. •N. Anastassiades, for the plaintiffs. M.Montanios with R. Michaelides, forthe defendants. Cur. adv. vult 20 PIKISJ. read the following judgment. There was long delay in the trial of these cases, mainly due totheabsence of the plaintiffs abroad and the natureof theirwork thatmade itdifficult for them to cometoCyprus andpursue theircases ontheseveral occasions on which they had been fixed for heanng. Eventually, to make 25 possible the trial of these consolidated actions, it became necessary to deconsolidate a third one. Case No.215/82, owing to insuperable difficulties in the path of the plaintiff in thataction coming to Cyprus to testify in support of his case. In the end it became possible to try the two of the three consolidated actions, 3 and conclude theirhearing on 3rd November,
  2. Emmanuel Sidiropoulos and Demetrios Tzanetos, Greek seamen, contracted with the agents of the defendants to serve aboard «PANAG1A MYRTIDIOTISSA» as First and Second Engineer respectively. The agreement regulating terms and 35 conditions of their service, concluded on 25th September, 567 Piltls J. Sidiropoulos v. Ship Panayia Myrtidiotieea
(1987)1982 was evidenced inwriting (Exhibits3 and 4). Itprovided for theengagement oftheservices ofthe plaintiffs fora seven-month period, subject to extension, for the remuneration stipulated therein. The agreement was entered into through the mediacyof Marathassa Lines Ltd., the recruiting agents of the defendant 5 vessel; (hereafter referred to as the «defendant»). Ashort while later the plaintiffs boarded the boat on a voyage,to several European ports to collectgeneral cargo. Thejourneywasuneventful untiltheyreachedtheSwedish port ofUdevallaon 1stNovember, 1982.On herarrivalthevesselwas 10 boarded by officials of the International Transport Federation (I.T.F.) an international federation of transport workers, interested to examine the terms and conditions of service of the crew, particularly those affecting their remuneration. They found the remuneration of the crew wanting and on their initiative and 15 directions, all loading work wassuspended pending negotiations with the owners, conducted on their behalf by the Captain and other representatives. The plaintiffs and fellow workers stopped work pending the outcome of the intervention of ITF. The negotiationsweresuccessful. 20 On 4th November, 1982, new agreements were executed between seamen andtheCaptain, actingonbehalf oftheowners, providing for a substantial increase of the salaries of seamen. In addition, the owners were required to pay US$10,
  1. -into an ITFfund forthewelfare ofseamen.Thenewagreementsreplaced 25 andsuperseded theagreementsofthe25thSeptember, 1982.Not only the agreements were signed by the Captain without protest butthedifference intheremuneration ofseamenbetweenthefirst andsecond agreementswaspaidtothempursuanttothetermsof the new agreements. On thesame orthe following daywork was 30 resumed; later the vessel continued on herjoumey according to . itinerary. The events surrounding the execution of the new agreements andthejoumey back toCypruswereexplained intheevidenceof the two plaintiffs and a fellow seaman Frane Lokas (D.W.I}, a 35 witnessfor thedefendant. Itemergesfrom theirtestimonythatthe initiative for the stoppage of work at Udevalla rested exclusively with ITF, with the members of the crew joining in the action - recommended by union officials in pursuit of claims for the improvement of theirremuneration. 40 568 ; 1 C.L.R Sidiropoulos v.Ship Panayia Myrridiotissa PikisJ. Another witness for the plaintiffs, a union official of Petrol Employees inCyprus,namely, Mr.Omiros Neocleous, explained that the policy of ITF is to intervene whenever the terms and conditions of employment of seamen, including their 5 remuneration, are not founded on collective agreements negotiated in the country of origin of the vessel or the collective agreement approved by ITF. The witness strongly refuted the suggestion of defendant that ITF blacked, as a matter of policy," . ships flying the Cyprus flag. The witness explained the ITF 10 operates worldwide and is a member of the International Free Federation ofWorkers. Itistheevidenceoftheplaintiffs thatthejourneybacktoCyprus was bedevilled by difficulties caused by the disengagement and eventual lossof theanchor, a factor that exposed thesafety ofthe 15 crewtograverisks.Furthermore, conditions of work deteriorated considerably; whereastheirhealthwasputtoperilbythefailureof the defendant toprovide them with satisfactory meals. Inprotest, the plaintiffs submitted their resignation, Mr.Tzanetos on the9th November, 1982, in writing, and Mr. Sidiropoulos orally on the 20 17th November,
  2. Their resignations were not accepted by the Captain, whereupon they continued uninterruptedly their duties as before. Eventually she sailed to Cyprus for repairs, arrivingon 27th November,
  3. Itisthecasefortheplaintiffs thaton arrivaltoCyprusthe agents 25 of the defendant dismissed them and refused to pay them the remuneration and benefits to which they were entitled to by the agreementsof4thNovember, 1982(Exhibit 1 and4).Itseemsthat with the arrival of the vessel in Cyprus, the services of the entire crewand the captain wereterminated orcame toan end withthe 30 soleexception ofMr.Lokaswho continued inthe employmentof thedefendant onthetermsandconditionsoftheagreementofthe 25thSeptember, 1982.Moreover, herefunded, induecourse,the additional remuneration received at Udevalla. Apart from the plaintiffs who instituted the present action, other members of the 35 crew took action against the defendant too, resulting in the settlement of their case in the circumstances detailed by Mr. Theophilou, theadvocatewhoacted ontheirbehalf.He informed us that the settlements were founded on the provisions of the second agreements. 569 PUds J. Sidiropoulos v. Ship Panayia MyrtJdiotissa
(1987)The actionsof theplaintiffs arefounded onalleged breachesby the defendant of the agreements of 4th November, 1982 and includethe following claims:(a)Arrears of salary for the period between 4th November and 27th November, 1982. 5 (b)Leave allowance for theperiod between 23rdSeptember to 28th November, 1982. (c)Overtime allowance. (
  1. d)Remuneration for services rendered on the days when plaintiffs were on leave. (e)Damages forwrongful dismissal. The defendant disputed the claimsand soughta declaration for the rescission of the agreements entered into at Udevalla. Before the execution of the second agreement, the plaintiffs, it was alleged, were in breach of the contract of their employment by 15 refusing directions to transfer to another vessel of the owners of «PANAGIAMYRTIDIOTISSA»,asuggestion unwaveringly denied by both plaintiffs. No evidence was adduced to substantiate this aspect of their case or the allegation that plaintiffs were guiltyof negligence leadinginthecausationofconsiderable damagetothe 20 engine of the defendant estimated at US$100,000. - The counterclaim for the recovery of damages for negligence was abandoned at the end of the day in the absence of any evidence tosupport it.Thecentralthemeofthecaseforthedefendant isthat the agreements of 4th November, 1982, were the product of 25 coercion and on that account are liable to be set aside. A declaration tothatend wassoughtinthecounterclaim.The Court was asked to infer from the evidence of the plaintiffs that the agreements were the product of economic duress applied byITF intended to coerce the defendant into submission to their terms. 30 AccordingtoMr.AndreasVassiliades,thesecretaryandoneofthe directors of Marathassa Lines Ltd., the financial loss from the suspension of work at Udevalla was considerable, while the defendant stood to suffer much more ifthe stoppage continued. Theverystoppage created difficulties inthe performance of their 35 fontract with an Iranian corporation to which the vessel was Chartered. He acknowledged, however, that the agreements were signed on their behalf bythe Captain withoutprotest. They signified their opposition to the agreements of 4th November, 570 10 1 C.L.R. Sidiropoulos v.Ship Panayia MyrtidtorJssa PlkisJ . 1982, as soon as the vessel arrived in Cyprus when they sought from members ofthecrewrefund oftheadditionalmoniespaidto them at Udevella. On consideration of the evidence before me,itemerges and so I accept thattheservicesofthe plaintiffs were terminated on 27th November, 1982,because oftheirunwillingnesstodonounce the agreements of 4th November, 1982. Another inference is that defendant refused to pay plaintiffs for services rendered in accordance with the stipulations of those agreements. 10 Furthermore, Iaccepttheevidence oftheplaintiffs that conditions of work aboard «PANAGIA MYRTIDIOTISSA» were unacceptable, exposing theirsafety and health torisk.Thecentral issueintheseproceedingsisthevalidityofthesecondagreements. Iffound thattheagreementswerevalid,plaintiffswillbeentitled to 15 the damages claimed intheiractions. 5 Mr. Montanios, for the defendant, submitted that the agreements of 4th November, 1982, were invalid for three reasons: 20 25 30 (
  2. a)Lack of necessary certainty of the terms of the agreement, stemmingfrom theincorporation ofthe'collective agreement of ITF into the terms and conditions of the contract. (
  3. b)Lack of consideration moving from the promises. Plaintiffs gave no consideration for the additional benefits conferred thereby as they were bound by the agreementsof 25th September, 1982,toprovide exactlythe same services. (c)Coercion resultingfrom theeconomic duressappliedby ITFneutralizing the freedom of the defendant to contract as they chose, for fear of the economic consequences likely to befall them from anyprolongation ofthe stoppage of work. (a)Certaintyofthe termsofthe agreement Mr. Anastassiades drew the attention of the Court to the provisions of s. 12
(6)of Merchant and Shipping (Captains and Seamen)Law 1963,givingstatutorysanctiontothe incorporation 35 by reference in seamen's agreement of the terms of collective agreements. The agreement here under consideration conformedwiththestatutorynormsofcertaintywithregardtothe termsandconditions of employment of seamen. Inmyjudgment the contract cannot be faulted for lack of certainty of itsterms. Moreover, it was possible at any one time to ascertain with 571 Pikis J . Sidiropoulos v.Ship Panayia MyrtJdlorissa
(1987)certainty the rights and obligations of the parties thereunder. There is no room for invalidating the agreements for lack of certainty of theirtermsin any material respect. (b) Consideration Section 25
(1)of the ContractLaw (Cap. 149) provides thatan 5 agreement made without consideration is void, unless itfalls into any one of the three exceptions enumerated thereunder; that need not concern us in this case. Our statute does not define consideration. However, s. 2 of the Contract Law provides that expressions used in our statute, not otherwise defined, must be 10 presumed to have the meanting attached to them in English law and be construed accordingly. The notionof consideration under English law requires that consideration should move from the promisee.And inasmuchastheplaintiffs gavenothinginreturnfor the additional benefits conferred tothemby the new agreements, 15 the agreements were voided for lack of consideration. The self same services they contracted to render by the agreements of Udevalla, plaintiffs wereundercontractual obligation torenderby the agreements of 25th September,
  1. Hence they gave nothing in return for the enhanced benefits; sequentially the 20 agreement was abortive for lack of consideration. The argument overlooks the implications of novation of contract onthe one handandthelegitimacy of industrial actionas an agent for the substitution of industrially unacceptable agreements, on the other. Both topics are reviewed, most 25 comprehensively, by Lord Scarman in thejudgment of the Privy Council in Pao On v. Lau Yiu*. Substitution or variation of the terms of an agreement as a result of industrial action is no longer examined, as can be deduced from thejudgment, from a straight angle of consideration, butfrom abroader perspective associated 30 with the achievement of harmony and justice in industrial relations. Therefore, if theparties freely enter intoan agreement replacing an oldone intendingtobe boundthereby contractually, the agreement willbe sustained; unless theconsentof eitherisnot a voluntary expression of willingnesstoenterintotheagreement. 35 The following passage from thejudgment of LordScarman inthe above case puts.the matter in perspective and obviates, to my comprehension, any need to refer toprevious caselaw:•1197913AllΕR.
  2. 572 1 C.L.R. 5 10 Sidiropoulos v. Ship Panayla Myrridlotissa Pikis J. «TheirLordships'conclusionisthatwhere businessmen are negotiating at arm's length it is unnecessary for the achievement of justice, and unhelpful inthedevelopment of the law, to invoke such a rule of public policy. Itwould also create unacceptable anomaly. It is unnecessary because justice requires that men, who have negotiated at arm's length, be held to their bargains unless it can be shown that their consent was vitiated by fraud, mistake or duress. If a promise is induced by coercision of a man'swill,thedoctrine of duress suffices to do justice. The party coerced, if he chooses andacts intime, canavoid thecontract. Ifthere isno coercion, there can be no reason for avoiding the contract where there is shown to be a real consideration which is otherwise legal»*. 15 Elsewhere inthejudgment attentionwas drawn to thefact that American caselaw has moved along the same lines. In the American Restatement of the Law of Contracts the view is adopted that a pre-existing legal duty should not of itself be decisive; what should be weighed are the moral and economic 20 elementsassociated with the new agreement. In Cyprus substitution or variation of a contractof employment as a result of industrial action cannot be divorced or extricated from the provisions of Art. 27 safeguarding freedom tostrike as fundamental and inalienable human right. The right to strike 25 would be diminishedifagreementsresulting from itsexercise were invalid inlaw because of apre-existing contractualduty.Onceitis appreciated thata worker can, as of right, withhold his labour for the improvementof hisremuneration,returntowork as aresultof an improved offer for remunerationis sufficient consideration for 30 the validation of the agreement. The relevant provisions of the Contract Law Cap. 149, must be read and applied subject tothe Constitution. On considerationof the evidence, I makethefollowing findings relevant tothis aspect of the case. Theaction of ΠΤwas takenin 35 support of the rights of seamen in general and for theimmediate benefit of the crew of «PANAGIA MYRTIDIOTISSA». The plaintiffs and fellow seamenjoined intheindustrial actionfor the *Pages 77and 78of Pao On ν Lau Yiu(supra)See alsoNew Zealand Shipping Co Ltd ν AMSatterthwaiteandCo Ltd.[1974)1AIIE.R.
  4. 573 PlkU J. Sidiropoulos v. Ship Panayia MyrtJdlorJssa
(1987)improvement of their remuneration. The economic pressure that was undoubtedly exerted by ITF on defendant was the result of industrial action mounted in support of conditions of pay of members of the class of workers that ITFrepresented on aglobal basis. It emerges from the evidence of Mr. Vassiliades that the 5 remuneration of the crew, averaging about US$350.- per month wasfar below the standard of remuneration acceptable toITF.As a result of the industrial action the average remuneration of seamen serving on «PANAGIA MYRTID10TISSA» was raised to US$1,000.- per month. The inevitable inference is that the 10 intervention of ITFledtoadrastic increase oftheremunerationof the crew. From the view point of the crew the new agreements were a vast improvement on the previous terms of their employment (negotiated without union support). The action of ITF,as far as itaffected the plaintiffs, constituted industrial action 15 designed to improve the salaries of members of the class of workersthey represented. Economic Duress - Coercion At common law coercion as an agent for the avoidance of a contract was confined to criminal acts involving threat to life or 20 limb.Overtheyearsthelawdeveloped andcametorecognizethat otherforms ofduresscouldfound coercion inthefieldofcivillaw, first threats to property and secondly threats to a man's trade or business*. Development in this sphere of the law isdiscussed in Universe Tankships v. I.T.F.**. The law acknowledges that 25 economic duress can, provided it vitiates the consent of a contractingparty,be relied upon toavoid anagreement.The case of Barton v. Armstrong*** indicates that the pressure exerted cannotbedivorced from thelegitimacyofthecausein furtherance towhichitisapplied.Noneofthecasescitedsuggestthatindustrial 30 action mounted in pursuit of a claim for higher pay can found economic duress. Though pressure applied for securing a collateral end may, with regard to attainment of that end, be treatedasillegitimate.Inanyeventand quiteindependentlyofthe legal position in other countries, strike action pursued insupport 35 ofa claimfor improved paycannot inCyprusbeconsidered asan * TheprocessofevolutionofthelawrelevanttocoercionistracedbyGoffandJones, TheLa\ ofRestitution-2ndEdition,
  1. Cap.
  2. •'H982I2ABE.R.
  3. »*tl975}2ADER.36S.476-4r/ 574 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 Sidiropoulos v. Ship Panayla Myrtidioti.ee PWtle J. illegitimate form of pressure, in view of Art. 27.1 of the Constitution safeguarding such action as a fundamental human right. To pursue.the implications of economic duress one step further, it must oe noticed that contracts resulting from the application ofsuchpressure vitiating theconsentof apartythereto are notvoidbut voidable. This emerges from the case ofUniverse Tankships (supra) as well as from the extensive discussion of the subject by Mocatta, J., in North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai ConstructionCo. Ltd.andAnother, TheAtlanticBaron*. A contract liable to be set aside for economic duress cannot be avoided after any act of affirmation by the party pressured, objectively consistent with the confirmation of the agreement. And noactof confirmation couldbe clearer than theactionof the defendant in this case arising from the payment of salaries of seamen according to the agreement of 4th November,
  4. Therefore, underany circumstancesitistoolatefor the defendant toseektoavoid thecontract.Andtocompletethelegal framework affecting the avoidance of contracts on account of inequality of bargaining power, reference may be made to the case of Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd. and Others v. Total Oil GB Ltd.**where the question was put inperspective by stressing that for the Courtto interfere on that score, there must be a distinct element of unfairness as in the case of strong party pushing the weak tothi wall. 25 The arguments raised by counsel for the defendant revolved exclusively round the state of English Law without noticing th.t there are differences between contemporary conceptof coercic ι under English and Cyprus Law. InCyprus coercion is defined by s. 15 of theContractLaw, Cap. 149, andisfashioned toan earlier 30 understanding of the notion under English Law. Although coercion is not merely modelled on threats to life and limb and extends to the unlawful detaining or threatsto detain property,it does notextend tothreatstobusiness ortrade.Moreimportantly, threats to life or limb must constitute a criminal act under the 35 CriminalCodewhereas inthecase of detentionof property again the actmustbe unlawful inlaw. We need notexplore theambitof •(197813ABE.R.
  5. **11985]1AIIE.R. 303 (C.A.)(Decisionof the trialCourt, [1983]1 All E.R. 944). 575 Pikls J. Sidiropoulos v. Ship Panayia Myrtidiotissa
(1987)s. 15*further fornone ofthe acts complained ofin this case falls into anyofthecategories ofacts that may found coercion under the Cyprus Contract Law. Section 14, ontheother hand, ofour Contract Lawprovides thatconsent toacontract«issaidtobe free when itisnotcaused by»anyofthefacts specified thereunder, 5 including coercion asdefined ins. 15.Toconclude, none ofthe acts relied upon bythe defendant could found coercion under Cyprus Law. The case for the defendant for coercion must be dismissed. Having accepted, asI do,thecase forthe plaintiffs with regard to 10 breaches of the agreements of 4th November, 1982,andthe justification of the claims of the plaintiffs based under their provisions, the plaintiffs areentitled tojudgment asper claim,that is, the plaintiff in Action No.213/82 to US$6,674.90 andthe plaintiff inAction No. 216/82 toUS$4,533.20. Judgment willbe 15 given in the currency of the contract**. Therefore, judgment is given for theplaintiff inAction No.213/82 forUS$6,674.90 orits equivalent inCyprus pounds. Furthermore, judgment isgivenfor plaintiff inAction No 216/82 forUS$4,533.20 oritsequivalentin Cypruspounds.The plaintiffs are entitledtotheir costs. ^0 The counterclaim is dismissed with costs; save that where litigation for the claim coincided with litigation for the counterclaim, one setofcostsshould berecovered. Judgment and order for costsasabove. *ForadiscussionoftherangeofapplicationofacomparableprovisionoftheIndian Lawof ContractandSpecific ReliefActs, see PollockandMuila, 10thEd.,p. 14?et seq. " Lemaignere [1975]3 AllE.R. 801; Williams&Clyn's BankPic.v.PanayioOsKouloumbis andtheship *MAR1A»
(1986)1C.LR.627. 576 25

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.