A homeowner was approached by a contractor who offered to repair storm damage to the homeowner's roof for $20,000. The homeowner initially refused, stating the estimate was too high. Later that evening, the contractor returned, threatening to disclose damaging but false information about the homeowner's business dealings unless the homeowner signed the repair contract. Under pressure, the homeowner signed the contract. The contractor subsequently performed no work but sued to enforce the $20,000 payment. Is the contract enforceable?
The contract is not enforceable because the homeowner signed it under duress from the contractor's wrongful threat.
The contract is not enforceable because the contractor's actions constituted undue influence.
The contract is enforceable because the homeowner signed it after rejecting the contractor's first offer.
The contract is enforceable because the contractor promised valuable services but has not yet performed them.
Enforceability is negated due to duress because the contractor used a wrongful threat to compel the homeowner to sign the contract. Duress arises when a party's assent is procured through threats that leave them without a reasonable choice. The key element here is coercion by a wrongful act. While undue influence refers to excessive pressure typically arising in the context of a relationship of trust, no such relationship is evident here. The other options fail to account for the impact of the contractor's wrongful threats on the homeowner's free will.
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.