Cresswell v Potter
Cresswell v Potter  1 WLR 255 is an English contract law case relating to exploitation of weakness allowing escape from a contract. Facts. Ms Cresswell was a telephonist for the Post Office. She divorced from Mr Potter, and then contracted to convey him her interest in Slate Hall in return for release from mortgage liability. Two years later, Mr Potter sold the property for £3350, making a £1400 profit. Ms Cresswell successfully argued that she should get half because he had exploited her weaknesses so much as to vitiate her consent to the contract , and she was vulnerable to this because she was the modern equivalent to a "poor and ignorant" person ("Fry v Lane"). Judgment. Megarry J said the first of the (non exhaustive) requirements from "Fry v Lane" is to be ‘poor and ignorant’, the second is whether the sale was at a considerable undervalue and the third is whether there was any independent advice. In more modern euphemisms, ‘poor and ignorant’ would be ‘member of the lower income group’ and ‘less highly educated’. Because Ms Cresswell was a van driver for a tobacconist and now a PO telephonist, had slender means  and was on legal aid, this was enough: On the point of independent advice, he noted that on one side stood Mr Potter, his solicitor and the inquiry agent, and on the other Ms Cresswell alone. Lord Justice Nourse noted in the case of Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Helen Burch that Megarry J's decision in this case "demonstrates that the jurisdiction [on iniquitous pressure] is in good heart and capable of adaptation to different transactions entered into in changing circumstances".