When does duress make a contract voidable?

The Threat must have persuaded the innocent party to enter into the contract. The innocent party must have entered into the contract because of the threat. if the party would have entered into the same contract anyway, even without being threatened, the contract is not voidable.

Have you ever had a legal case inwhich you knew you were in the right but the other party, either being a person who might know of those higher up, by using acts of bribery with them, or even a government worker themselves whom seems to be concidered before ever the other person, outside the government, is ever concidered?

I highly recomend that you start by kwnoing your rights. Even if you wish to higher a lawyer, or use a free lawyer, if offered, I highly recommend that you start knowing your rights.

jose-rizal“…pronouncing judgment after hearing only one of the parties; it is sterring a ship without reckoning its condition, the state of the sea, the reefs and shoals, the direction of the winds and current. It is managing a house by endeavoring merely to give it polish and a fine appearance without watching the money chest, without looking after the servants and the members of the family.” pg 378 by G. F. Zaide 2nd edition

Source: When does duress make a contract voidable?
Masthead High Res

Rufus8RR seeks indemnity for victims
of wrongful convictions

By Fidel Gumawid, MRS-PRIB

Friday, August 28, 2009

Persons who were jailed but found later to be innocent of criminal charges may soon be indemnified under a bill filed at the House of Representatives.

Rep. Rufus Rodriguez (2nd District, Cagayan de Oro City) said House Bill 6529 seeks to compensate persons wrongfully convicted of a crime.

“The bill seeks to indemnify him or her for the loss, injury and damage brought about by such wrongful conviction,” said Rodriguez, author of the bill.

“There are numerous cases when the Supreme Court, upon review, reversed the decisions of the lower courts and decided to acquit the convict,” Rodriguez added.

Rodriguez said the High Court’s reversal of the ruling of the lower court consequently means a person exonerated of the crime for which he or she was charged, has languished in jail for a crime he or she did not commit.

Under the bill, the damage to be awarded should not double the amount of the claimant’s income in the year before his incarceration, or to one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) for each year of compensation, whichever is greater.

In addition to the damages, the claimant will also be entitled to receive reasonable attorney’s fees.

Rodriguez said Article III, Section I of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

He added that Section 14 of the constitution provides that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

“These people have been egregiously convicted of a crime they have not committed and they deserve to be compensated,” Rodriguez said.

 

Comments closed.