A homeowner entered into a contract to sell his house to a buyer. Before signing the agreement, the buyer pressured the homeowner by threatening to launch a baseless public lawsuit against the homeowner's family business, claiming the business had engaged in unethical practices. Fearing the negative publicity, the homeowner agreed to sell the house despite believing he was receiving far below market value. If the homeowner later seeks to void the contract, which is the strongest argument for his claim?
The homeowner’s fear of bad publicity does not constitute duress, as no direct physical force was used.
The homeowner sold the house for far below its fair market value, which renders the contract unenforceable.
The homeowner failed to negotiate additional terms that would have made the sale more favorable.
The threat of a baseless lawsuit deprived the homeowner of the free will needed to enter into the contract.
A contract may be unenforceable if one party enters into it under duress. Here, a threat of harm that coerces a party into signing a contract, particularly when the threat lacks legal justification (such as threatening a baseless lawsuit), constitutes duress. The correct answer highlights the absence of legitimate legal grounds for coercive conduct and the influence it has on the homeowner's ability to offer genuine assent. This distinguishes it from other incorrect answers that either do not address the coercive element or incorrectly focus on unrelated issues like market value or alternative negotiation routes.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What constitutes duress in contract law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does a baseless lawsuit relate to duress?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What impact does fear of bad publicity have on contractual agreements?