Also known as: fraud & duress · fraud, duress · contract defenses · voidable contract grounds
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Conduct involving misrepresentation or improper pressure that invalidates a manifestation of assent or a donative transfer. The presence of such conduct renders the resulting agreement, marriage, will, trust, or inheritance disposition voidable or void at the election of the affected party.
Sterling Livestock told Selena it would stop all future cattle purchases unless she signed a new twice-monthly delivery schedule. Selena stated three times that she had no choice because losing her main buyer would force her to sell her herd at a loss and default on loans, then signed and performed three deliveries. After consulting counsel she repudiated the schedule in writing. The schedule is not enforceable against her.
After the testator's death, a contestant challenged the will on the ground that the proponent had used threats to force the testator to sign. The contestant introduced evidence that the testator had repeatedly stated he did not want to execute the document but feared loss of financial support. The court placed the burden on the contestant to establish fraud or duress and required the proponent to prove due execution.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
One party told the other that the marriage was necessary to avoid deportation and that the couple would live together permanently. In reality the first party planned only to obtain immigration status and had no intention of cohabiting. The deceived spouse sought to have the marriage declared invalid on the basis of the misrepresentations.
A nephew learned that his aunt intended to leave him her estate. He falsely told the aunt that his cousin had been stealing from her and threatened to expose family secrets unless she changed her will to exclude the cousin. The cousin sued the nephew for the loss of the inheritance that would otherwise have been received.
A settlor executed a trust instrument after his nephew threatened to publicize damaging personal information unless the settlor placed substantial assets in trust for the nephew's benefit. The settlor later sought to have the trust declared void on the ground that its creation had been induced by improper pressure.
Rina clicked accept on an assignment offer while boarding a flight. The offeror had fraudulently represented that the terms matched her prior work, but they contained a new exclusivity clause. She later refused to honor the clause after discovering the misrepresentation. Her click manifested assent, but the clause remained subject to challenge on the ground of fraud.
Yes. Conduct may manifest assent even when the party does not subjectively assent. The resulting agreement is nevertheless voidable when the manifestation was induced by fraud or duress.
Supporting sources
The contestant of the will bears the burden of establishing fraud or duress. The proponent must first establish due execution, after which the contestant must prove the invalidating cause by the applicable standard of proof.
Supporting sources
Yes. A marriage requires that both parties enter of their own free will. When one party uses fraud or duress to induce the other to marry, the marriage is subject to attack and may be annulled.
Supporting sources
The injured party may recover damages from the person who used fraud or duress to prevent receipt of the inheritance or gift that would otherwise have been received.
Supporting sources
No. A trust is void to the extent its creation was induced by fraud or duress.
Supporting sources
…brought by another party to enforce the contract, see In re F.T.R. , 833 N.W.2d at 649 (finding that generally applicable contract defenses are available in an action to enforce a traditional surrogacy agreement). While these defenses, if substantiated by proof, may invalidate a particular surrogacy contract, none prohibit the…