Also known as: Nihil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metus · vis atque metus · vis et metus · duress · force and fear · lack of consent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An ancient maxim holding that genuine consent cannot coexist with physical compulsion or threats of harm. Conduct that appears to manifest assent is ineffective when produced by duress. The principle renders agreements, transfers, and other legal acts voidable or invalid when force or improper threats overcome free will.
Nicole Navarro fell behind on mortgage payments to Northstar Logistics. The lender's agent threatened immediate foreclosure and seizure of personal property unless Navarro executed a deed in lieu transferring the home. Navarro signed only after the agent blocked the exit and refused to allow her to consult counsel. Because the transfer was not voluntary, the deed in lieu fails to discharge the mortgage.
Nicholas Nunez received an unsolicited visit from an attorney who demanded he retain the firm to sue his former employer. The attorney threatened to publicize damaging personal information if Nunez refused to sign the retainer that day. Nunez signed under the threat. The solicitation is prohibited because it involves coercion and duress.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nina Nielsen met with a car dealer to discuss a purchase. When she attempted to leave, the salesman grabbed her wrist, held her hand down, and forced her to sign the contract while she verbally objected. The resulting document is not effective as a manifestation of assent because the signature was physically compelled by duress.
Nigel Nelson's nephew threatened to destroy family heirlooms unless Nelson immediately executed a deed conveying his vacation home to the nephew. Nelson signed the deed to avoid the threatened destruction. The donative transfer is invalid because it was procured by duress.
Nalini Narula was presented with a premarital agreement minutes before the wedding ceremony. Her fiancé threatened to cancel the wedding and publicly humiliate her unless she signed immediately. Narula signed to avoid the threatened harm. The agreement is unenforceable because her consent was the result of duress.
Nolan Nunez's caregiver threatened to abandon him without medical care unless he executed a new will naming the caregiver as sole beneficiary. Nolan signed the will under the threat. In a later contest, the contestant bears the burden of establishing duress to invalidate the will.
Physical compulsion that forces a signature while the victim objects renders the apparent assent ineffective. No contract arises because the conduct does not manifest genuine assent.
Supporting sources
A threat of criminal prosecution is improper when used to extract contractual assent. The resulting agreement is voidable even if the underlying accusation has some factual basis.
Supporting sources
A donative transfer procured by duress is invalid to the extent the wrongful threat or act overcame the donor's free will and caused a transfer the donor would not otherwise have made.
Supporting sources
The contestant must establish that a wrongful threat or act coerced the testator into making a will the testator would not otherwise have made. The burden of persuasion rests on the contestant.
Supporting sources
Ordinary financial pressure does not constitute duress. The agreement remains enforceable unless the opposing party made an improper threat that left the victim no reasonable alternative.
Supporting sources
…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…