Agreement On Duress

Coercion under contract law is a common law defence, which is put in place when one of the parties has held an ascending position relative to the other party and has abused that position by using the other threat. A party who entered into a contract under duress has the right to terminate the contract or cancel it, which makes it (in equity) questionable. . But my judgment does not have at the disposal of an accused who voluntarily exposes himself to illegal coercion. It`s not just about joining a criminal enterprise; it is a question of joining a criminal enterprise of such a nature that the accused assessed the very nature of the enterprise and the attitude of those responsible, so that, when he was actually coerced, a jury could legitimately say that he had voluntarily exposed himself and had been subjected to such coercion. A valid contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more mentally competent parties. Your signature on a contract confirms that you understand and agree to the terms, whether it`s an exchange or an agreement, to do something (or not to do it). But being pressured or pressured to sign a contract goes against the very concept of contract law. Coercion involves illegitimate threats. Customary law has long allowed a claim when the coercion was physical.

As long as a threat is only one of the reasons why a person reaches an agreement, even if it is not the main reason, the agreement can be avoided. In Barton vs. Armstrong,[1] Mr. Armstrong attempted to “heavily arm” Mr. Barton to pay him a large golden parachute to leave a store, forcing his thugs to make death threats to Barton`s family. Although Barton was tough and probably made the payment anyway, he was able to avoid the deal. The basis of the defense is that coercion effectively overwhelmed the will of the accused and would also have overwhelmed the will of a person with ordinary courage (a hybrid test that requires both subjective evidence of the accused`s mental state and objective confirmation that the failure to resist threats was reasonable), making all behavior unintentionally involuntary. Therefore, liability should be reduced or discharged, so that the defence becomes a debtor. The key to determining whether there is coercion is to examine the impact of the acts on the alleged victim`s ability to make an informed decision. It is a subjective assessment of the uselessness of nature. Whether it is forced or not depends not only on whether a “reasonable person” would have felt too much pressured. It depends on the facts of the case and the specific relationship between the people involved….

About the Author