On 1), how does it help to dump the issue into either "blackmail" or "equity"? We face precisely the same issue of what counts as blackmail, or when equity ought to intervene as we do under the heading "lawful act duress".

(1) The result must be right, but that's because I'd always been unhappy with lawful act duress. It's like the Old Man of the Sea: you can't knock it into any proper shape. I much prefer ANZ v Karam (2005) 64 NSWLR 149, dumping the whole common law idea and letting equitable doctrines do any necessary work with things like blackmail. Preferably leaving all but the periphery of commercial law well alone.

(2) The interesting question is over "entitled". Legally, socially or morally? What if PIA had known it was legally bound to pay the previous commission but only because of some stupid error which left this travel agent being paid twice as much as all its competitors? Same result?

Andrew

Interesting decision of the Court of Appeal on lawful act duress yesterday.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/828.html

The headline is

"the doctrine of lawful act duress does not extend to the use of lawful pressure to achieve a result to which the person exercising pressure believes in good faith it is entitled, and that is so whether or not, objectively speaking, it has reasonable grounds for that belief." [105]

That can't be right. imo. fwiiw.

best

Rob