While the illegitimate pressure theory provides a more satisfactory theoretical basis for duress in contract law than the overborne will theory, it insufficiently addresses why a victim who has given deliberated consent should be excused from contractual responsibility. The paper proposes that the additional element of ‘excusable consent’ enhances the current analytical framework: first, by recognising that the law makes value judgments of both the threatening party's actions and the victim's response; secondly, by lightening the burden of the illegitimate pressure element and providing it greater focus; and, thirdly, by providing a better fit for considerations such as ‘no practical alternatives’ that strain the existing framework.

The assertion of contractual rights may be defeated by the illegality defence, not because their creation is offensive to public policy but by reason of an illegality that ‘taints’ these rights. To date, no analytical framework has been developed for understanding how these tainting rules are connected to one another. The Tainting Illegality Framework (TIF) presented in this paper seeks to fill this gap in current legal scholarship by exploring, first, the linkages between the rules by which contract rights are tainted and, secondly, the theoretical underpinnings that explain the existing tensions and that will continue to shape the law in this area. The suggested analytical approach enriches and increases the sophistication of the current approaches by considering how their application is shaped by considerations of proximity and the nature of the contaminating illegality. The framework recognises the value of the existing rules, and seeks to enrich the analytical approach by suggesting how their application can more transparently reflect the policy rationale for applying the illegality defence.

The scope of duty of care concept developed by Lord Hoffmann in South Australia Asset Management v York Montagu (1997) AC 191 seeks to limit a valuer's responsibility for a lender's losses arising from his negligent valuation report. The limitation device stems from a laudable motivation. As the valuer provides only one of the considerations on which the lender relies to assess the loan proposal, it is intuitively unappealing to thrust the full loss onto the valuer. However, this limitation technique operates in a mechanical manner and does not deal with the loss attributable to the market fall in a cogent and principled manner. This article suggests that the key to a principled restriction on the valuer's responsibility lies in identifying the kinds of risks the parties were willing to assume. The author develops two techniques - the Constructive Alternative Transaction Discount and the Constructive Actualised Risk Discount - for reducing the valuer's extent of responsibility in a principled and cogent manner.