§175. WHEN DURESS BY THREAT MAKES A CONTRACT VOIDABLE
(1) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by an
improper threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative, the contract is
voidable by the victim.
(2) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by one who
is not a party to the transaction, the contract is voidable by the victim unless the other party to
the transaction in good faith and without reason to know of the duress either gives value or
relies materially on the transaction.
a. Improper threat.....Courts
originally restricted duress to threats involving loss of life, mayhem or imprisonment, but these restrictions have been greatly
relaxed and, in order to constitute duress, the threat need only be improper within the rule stated
b. No reasonable
alternative. A threat, even if improper, does not amount to duress if the victim has a reasonable alternative to succumbing and fails to
take advantage of it. It is sometimes said that the threat must arouse such fear as precludes a party
from exercising free will and judgment or that it must be such as would induce assent on the part of a
brave man or a man of ordinary firmness. The rule stated in this Section omits any such
requirement because of its vagueness and impracticability. It is enough if the threat actually induces
assent (see Comment c) on the part of one who has no reasonable alternative....
The standard is a practical one under which account must be
taken of the exigencies in which the victim finds himself, and the mere availability of a legal
remedy is not controlling if it will not afford effective relief to one in the victim's circumstances....
c. Subjective test of
inducement. In order to constitute duress, the improper threat must induce the making of the contract....A party's manifestation of assent
is induced by duress if the duress substantially contributes to his decision to manifest his
assent. The test is subjective and the question is, did the threat actually induce assent on the part of the
person claiming to be the victim of duress.
Threats that would suffice to induce assent by one person may
not suffice to induce assent by another. All attendant circumstances must be considered,
including such matters as the age, background and relationship of the parties. Persons of a weak or
cowardly nature are the very ones that need protection; the courageous can usually protect
themselves. Timid and inexperienced persons are particularly subject to threats, and it does not lie
in the mouths of the unscrupulous to excuse their imposition on such persons on the ground of their
§176. WHEN A THREAT IS IMPROPER
(1) A threat is improper if
(a) what is threatened is a crime or a tort, or the threat
itself would be a crime or a tort if it resulted in obtaining property,
(b) what is threatened is a criminal prosecution,
(c) what is threatened is the use of civil process and the
threat is made in bad faith,
(d) the threat is a breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing under a contract with the recipient.
(2) A threat is improper if the resulting exchange is not on
fair terms, and
(a) the threatened act would harm the recipient and would not
significantly benefit the party making the threat, or
(c) what is threatened is otherwise a use of power for