Also known as: vi aut metu · duress · force or fear
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A historical basis for rescinding a transaction when force or fear overcomes a party's free will. The phrase identifies conduct that prevents effective manifestation of assent or valid consent in contracts, transfers, and donative instruments.
Mortgagor Emmett Egan faced foreclosure on his commercial building. The mortgagee threatened immediate seizure of all rental income unless Egan signed a deed in lieu transferring title. Egan executed the deed only to avoid the threatened loss of cash flow. A court later set aside the transfer because the mortgagee's threat of economic ruin constituted force that negated voluntariness.
Attorney Elijah Edwards telephoned a recent accident victim and demanded an immediate retainer. Edwards warned that refusal would prompt him to contact the client's employer with damaging personal information. The client signed the agreement solely to stop the threats. The solicitation is barred because it employed duress to obtain consent.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Supplier Eva Espinosa met with a buyer who demanded an exclusive three-year contract. When Espinosa refused and rose to leave, the buyer seized her arm and pressed her hand onto the signature line. Espinosa signed only because physical restraint left her no alternative. The resulting writing is ineffective as a manifestation of assent.
Testator Edgar Evers drafted a new will naming his caregiver as sole beneficiary. The caregiver threatened to withhold all medical care unless Evers signed immediately. Evers executed the document only to avoid abandonment. The donative transfer is invalid because it was procured by duress.
Fiancée Elise Everly was presented with a premarital agreement minutes before the wedding ceremony. Her prospective spouse threatened to cancel the event and publicly humiliate her if she refused to sign. Everly executed the document solely to avert that harm. The agreement is unenforceable because her consent was the product of duress.
After a testator's death, a disinherited child petitioned to set aside the will. The child introduced evidence that the principal beneficiary had threatened the testator with exposure of private family matters unless the will favored the beneficiary. The contestant bears the burden of proving duress to invalidate the instrument.
Physical compulsion or an improper threat that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative negates effective assent. Courts examine whether the threatened act is itself a crime, tort, or bad-faith use of process.
Physical duress that prevents any manifestation of assent renders the transaction void. Threats that induce assent render the transaction voidable at the election of the victim.
The contestant must establish lack of testamentary intent or capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake, or revocation.
Threats of economic ruin or loss of housing may constitute duress when they leave the victim with no reasonable alternative and overcome free will.
…for a spell of several hours pausing only for the subject's necessities in acknowledgment of the need to avoid a charge of duress that can be technically substantiated. In a serious case, the interrogation may continue for days, with the required intervals for food and sleep, but with no respite from the atmosphere of…