Duress And Influence — Identify contracts formed under duress or undue influence - Bar Exam Uniform

SECTION 1

Historical Context & Motivation

The doctrines of duress and undue influence are among the oldest defenses to contractual enforcement, rooted in the common law's insistence that genuine assent is a prerequisite to a binding agreement. Early English courts recognized that a promise extracted through physical force or threats of bodily harm lacked the voluntary character essential to an enforceable bargain. Over centuries, as commercial relationships grew more complex, courts expanded these doctrines beyond mere physical coercion to encompass economic pressure and psychological manipulation, reflecting an evolving understanding of what it means to consent freely. The trajectory of these doctrines reveals a broader jurisprudential commitment: the law of contracts protects not merely the form of agreement but the quality of volition underlying it.

1600s • Common Law Origins

English courts recognized duress only in cases of actual physical compulsion or threats of imprisonment. The doctrine was narrow: only duress of the person sufficed to void a contract, reflecting the era's limited view of coercion.

1800s • Equity Develops Undue Influence

Courts of equity, recognizing that relationships of trust could be exploited without overt threats, fashioned the doctrine of undue influence. Landmark cases involving confidential relationships—attorneys and clients, guardians and wards—established that domination could be subtle yet equally destructive of free will.

1966 • Economic Duress Recognized

Courts began acknowledging that wrongful economic pressure—such as threatening to breach an essential contract unless the other party agreed to unfavorable modifications—could constitute duress. This marked a significant expansion beyond physical threats.

1979 • Restatement (Second) of Contracts

Sections 174–177 of the Restatement (Second) codified modern duress and undue influence principles, distinguishing between threats that render a contract void and those that make it merely voidable, and providing a framework adopted by the majority of American jurisdictions.

1990s–Present • Modern Applications

Contemporary courts apply duress and undue influence doctrines to employment agreements, settlement negotiations, pre-nuptial contracts, and consumer transactions, reflecting a sophisticated understanding of power imbalances in modern commerce.

The central question these doctrines address is deceptively straightforward: When does external pressure become so severe that a party's apparent assent no longer reflects genuine choice? Understanding how courts draw this line—and the analytical frameworks they employ—is essential for bar exam preparation, as these doctrines appear frequently in Contracts questions testing defenses to contract formation and enforcement.

SECTION 2

Core Principles & Definitions

Contract law requires that assent be given voluntarily. When a party's manifestation of assent is induced by improper pressure, the resulting agreement may be either void (a legal nullity from inception) or voidable (enforceable unless the aggrieved party elects to avoid it). The distinction depends on whether the coercion was so extreme as to eliminate all volition or merely sufficient to overwhelm the victim's capacity for reasonable judgment. Two principal doctrines govern this area: duress, which concerns illegitimate threats or compulsion, and undue influence, which concerns the exploitation of a position of dominance or trust.

Physical Duress (Compulsion)

Physical force or threats of physical harm that leave the victim with no choice whatsoever. Under Restatement §174, physical compulsion renders the contract void ab initio—not merely voidable—because the victim's act is not a voluntary manifestation of assent at all.

Duress by Threat (Improper Threat)

A contract is voidable under Restatement §175 when assent is induced by an improper threat that leaves the victim with no reasonable alternative. The threat need not involve violence; economic threats, threats of criminal prosecution, or threats of bad-faith litigation may qualify.

Economic Duress

A subset of duress by threat, economic duress arises when a party uses wrongful economic pressure—such as threatening to withhold goods or services essential to the other party's business—to extract contractual concessions. Courts examine whether the victim had adequate legal alternatives and whether the pressure was illegitimate.

Undue Influence

Under Restatement §177, undue influence involves unfair persuasion of a party who is under the domination of the influencing party or who, by virtue of the relationship between them, is justified in assuming that the influencing party will act in the victim's interest. The contract is voidable.

Confidential/Fiduciary Relationships

Undue influence claims frequently arise within confidential or fiduciary relationships—attorney-client, doctor-patient, trustee-beneficiary, parent-child. In such relationships, courts may presume undue influence when the transaction benefits the dominant party, shifting the burden to that party to prove fairness.

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of voluntary assent as a scale. On one end, a person freely weighs options and decides; on the other, someone holds a metaphorical gun to their head. Duress is the overt push that tips the scale entirely—like a contractor who threatens to abandon a half-finished building mid-project unless you pay double. Undue influence is more insidious—it's like a trusted financial advisor who convinces an elderly client to sign over assets by leveraging the trust inherent in their relationship. Both corrupt the weighing process, but through different mechanisms: one through external force, the other through relational exploitation.

SECTION 3

Visual Explanation — The Spectrum of Coercion

This diagram illustrates the spectrum of coercion from fully voluntary assent (left) to complete physical compulsion (right). Note the critical distinction: only physical compulsion renders a contract void; all other forms of duress and undue influence make the contract voidable at the election of the aggrieved party.

As the diagram illustrates, the law does not treat all coercion identically. The spectrum runs from legitimate persuasion (which is perfectly lawful and indeed the basis of all negotiation) through undue influence, economic duress, and threats, culminating in physical compulsion. The legal consequence shifts at two critical thresholds. First, when pressure becomes sufficiently improper and overwhelming to qualify as duress by threat or undue influence, the contract becomes voidable—the victim may choose to enforce it or avoid it. Second, when force is so complete that the victim's hand is literally guided to sign, no manifestation of assent exists, and the purported contract is void. For bar exam purposes, remember that the vast majority of duress and undue influence scenarios produce voidable—not void—contracts.

SECTION 4

Analytical Framework — Elements and Tests

Duress by Threat: The Two-Part Test

Under Restatement (Second) §175, a contract is voidable on grounds of duress when the victim's manifestation of assent was induced by an improper threat that left the victim with no reasonable alternative. Both elements must be satisfied. A threat may be improper even if the threatened act is not independently unlawful—for example, a threat to commence a civil lawsuit may be improper if used as leverage to extract a wholly unrelated concession. Conversely, even an improper threat will not constitute duress if the victim had adequate legal remedies or other practical alternatives available.

ℹ

Restatement (Second) §176 — What Makes a Threat Improper?

A threat is improper if what is threatened is: (a) a crime or tort; (b) criminal prosecution; (c) the use of civil process in bad faith; or (d) a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. A threat is also improper if the resulting exchange is not on fair terms and the threatened act would harm the recipient without significantly benefiting the threatening party, the effectiveness of the threat is increased by prior unfair dealing, or what is threatened is otherwise a use of power for illegitimate ends.

Economic Duress: Additional Considerations

Economic duress applies the same two-element framework but in commercial contexts. Courts typically require the claimant to demonstrate: (1) a wrongful or improper threat, often in the form of a threatened breach of contract; (2) the absence of a reasonable alternative, meaning that the claimant could not have obtained the goods, services, or performance elsewhere in time; and (3) that the claimant actually relied on the threat in assenting to the modified or new agreement. Importantly, hard bargaining is not economic duress. The mere fact that a party drives a difficult bargain or exploits superior market position does not, without more, constitute duress. The threat must involve conduct that is wrongful—typically a breach or threatened breach of an existing duty.

Undue Influence: The Odorizzi Framework

The landmark California case Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District (1966) articulated the most frequently cited framework for analyzing undue influence. The court identified several hallmarks of unfair persuasion: (1) discussion of the transaction at an unusual or inappropriate time; (2) consummation in an unusual place; (3) insistent demand that the business be finished at once; (4) extreme emphasis on untoward consequences of delay; (5) use of multiple persuaders against a single party; (6) absence of third-party advisors for the victim; and (7) statements discouraging the victim from consulting an attorney or other advisor. Under the Restatement approach (§177), undue influence is unfair persuasion of a party who is (a) under the domination of the other party, or (b) by virtue of the relationship, is justified in assuming that the other party will not act in a manner inconsistent with the victim's welfare.

This flowchart provides the analytical framework for bar exam questions. Begin by identifying the type of pressure: physical compulsion (void) versus threats or persuasion (voidable). For duress by threat, confirm both an improper threat and no reasonable alternative. For undue influence, confirm a qualifying relationship and unfair persuasion.

SECTION 5

Detailed Breakdown — Types of Threats and Influence

Categories of Improper Threats Under §176

Category	Example	Key Legal Principle
Crime or Tort	"Sign this contract or I will burn your warehouse."	Threatening any criminal act or tortious conduct is per se improper regardless of whether the terms are fair.
Criminal Prosecution	"Transfer the property to me or I will report your tax fraud to the IRS."	Using the threat of criminal prosecution to extract a private benefit is improper even if the threatened party actually committed the crime.
Bad-Faith Civil Process	"Accept this settlement or I will file a frivolous lawsuit against your spouse."	Using litigation as a weapon rather than for its legitimate purpose constitutes an abuse of process and improper threat.
Breach of Good Faith	"Pay me an extra $50,000 or I will stop construction on your house, which is already half-built."	Threatening to breach an existing contractual duty to extract a modification violates the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Illegitimate Use of Power	"I will withhold your inventory (which I'm contractually obligated to deliver) unless you agree to new pricing."	Even where the act threatened is not independently unlawful, using power for ends inconsistent with its purpose is improper when terms are unfair.

Categories of Improper Threats — Restatement (Second) §176

Distinguishing Undue Influence from Duress

While duress and undue influence both vitiate consent, they operate through different mechanisms and arise in distinct contexts. Duress typically involves a specific, identifiable threat directed at the victim, and the coercion is often transactional in nature—it occurs in the context of a particular deal. Undue influence, by contrast, involves the exploitation of a relationship over time. The influencing party may not make any overt threat at all; instead, the persuasion is unfair because it takes advantage of the victim's vulnerability, trust, or dependence. The Odorizzi factors capture the subtle, cumulative quality of this kind of pressure: unusual timing, isolation of the victim, urgency, and discouragement from seeking independent advice.

Nature of Pressure: Overt Threat vs. Relational Manipulation

Subtle / Relational Overt / Forceful

Voidability threshold (20%)

💡

Bar Exam Tip: The "Reasonable Alternative" Factor

On the MBE, the most commonly tested element of duress is whether the victim had a reasonable alternative to agreeing. If the victim could have obtained the goods or services elsewhere, sought a legal remedy, or simply refused and absorbed manageable consequences, the duress claim will fail—even if the threat was improper. Always ask: "Could this party have said no?"

SECTION 6

Worked Example — Analyzing a Duress Claim

Fact Pattern: Alpha Corp. contracts with Beta Builders to construct a new office building for $2 million, with a completion deadline of December 1. On November 1, when the building is 80% complete, Beta's project manager contacts Alpha's CEO and states: "We have encountered unexpected costs. Unless you agree to pay an additional $400,000, we will walk off the job today. You will never find a replacement contractor who can finish by December 1, and your tenants move in December 15." Alpha, facing lease obligations to its incoming tenants and unable to find an alternative contractor on such short notice, signs an amendment agreeing to the $400,000 increase. After completion, Alpha seeks to avoid the modification.

Analyzing Alpha's Duress Claim Under Restatement §§175–176

1
Step 1 — Identify the Threat

Beta threatened to breach its existing contractual obligation to complete the building. This is a threat to withhold performance already owed under the original contract. The threat was explicit and conditional: "pay more or we walk."

Threat identified: breach of existing contractual duty.
2
Step 2 — Determine Whether the Threat Is Improper (§176)

Under §176(1)(d), a threat is improper if it constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Beta owes Alpha a duty to perform under the original contract. Threatening to abandon an 80%-complete project to extract additional payment is a paradigmatic example of bad-faith leverage. Even if Beta's costs genuinely increased, using the threat of abandonment—rather than pursuing contract remedies for changed circumstances—renders the threat improper. Additionally, under §176(2), the exchange is not on fair terms (Alpha receives no new consideration for the additional $400,000), and the effectiveness of the threat is amplified by the timing and Alpha's vulnerability.

The threat is improper under §176(1)(d) and §176(2).
3
Step 3 — Assess Whether Alpha Had a Reasonable Alternative

Alpha faced a December 1 deadline with tenants moving in on December 15. The building was 80% complete, meaning a replacement contractor would need to take over mid-project with only one month remaining. The facts state Alpha was unable to find an alternative contractor on such short notice. While Alpha could theoretically have sued Beta for breach, litigation would not produce timely completion of the building. Alpha's lease obligations to incoming tenants created additional pressure. Under these circumstances, Alpha had no reasonable alternative to signing the modification.

No reasonable alternative existed—legal remedies were inadequate given the time constraints.
4
Step 4 — Determine Causation

The threat must have induced Alpha's assent to the modification. Here, the facts clearly indicate that Alpha signed the amendment because of Beta's threat to walk off the job. Alpha was not independently motivated to pay an additional $400,000; the modification was solely a response to the coercive pressure.

Causation established: the threat induced Alpha's assent.
5
Step 5 — Conclusion and Remedy

All elements of duress by threat are satisfied: (1) an improper threat under §176; (2) no reasonable alternative; and (3) the threat induced the assent. The $400,000 modification is voidable at Alpha's election. Alpha must act promptly to avoid the modification, as unreasonable delay could be construed as ratification. Alpha is entitled to restitution of any excess payments made under the modified agreement. Note that the original $2 million contract remains enforceable—only the modification procured by duress is voidable.

The modification is voidable. Alpha may recover the $400,000 excess. The original contract remains intact.

SECTION 7

Duress vs. Undue Influence — Strengths, Limitations, and Comparisons

Feature	Duress	Undue Influence
Source of Pressure	External threat—identifiable, often explicit	Relational—exploitation of trust, dependency, or vulnerability
Relationship Required?	No—can occur between strangers or arm's-length parties	Yes—requires a relationship of trust, confidence, or domination
Nature of Conduct	Overt threat or force	Subtle persuasion, manipulation, isolation
Key Elements	(1) Improper threat; (2) No reasonable alternative	(1) Unfair persuasion; (2) Domination or justified reliance on the other party's good faith
Burden of Proof	On the party asserting duress throughout	May shift to the dominant party in fiduciary relationships (presumption of undue influence)
Legal Effect	Void (physical compulsion) or Voidable (threats)	Voidable
Common Contexts	Contract modifications, settlement agreements, employment contracts	Estate planning, gifts, transactions with elderly or dependent persons

Comparison: Duress vs. Undue Influence

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of duress and undue influence as two different techniques for opening a locked door. Duress is the battering ram—obvious, forceful, and directed at a specific moment. Undue influence is the stolen key—quiet, relational, and enabled by a position of trust. Both get through the door (both vitiate consent), but the evidence looks very different. On the bar exam, the fact pattern will usually signal which doctrine is at issue: if you see a threat tied to a transaction, think duress; if you see a relationship of trust and subtle persuasion, think undue influence.

SECTION 8

Connections to Related Doctrines and Advanced Theory

Duress and undue influence do not exist in isolation. They intersect with several related contract-law doctrines, and understanding these connections is essential for sophisticated bar exam analysis. A fact pattern may raise duress alongside unconscionability, fraud and misrepresentation, lack of capacity, or the pre-existing duty rule. Recognizing these overlaps allows you to identify the strongest defense and, where multiple defenses apply, to layer your analysis.

Related Doctrine	Relationship to Duress/Undue Influence	Key Distinction
Unconscionability (UCC §2-302)	Both address unfairness in contract formation. A contract procured by duress is often also unconscionable. However, unconscionability can exist without any threat if terms are oppressively one-sided.	Unconscionability focuses on the terms and process; duress focuses on the nature of the coercion. Unconscionability requires both procedural and substantive elements.
Fraud / Misrepresentation	Both are defenses to formation based on defective assent. A party may both deceive and threaten. Fraud involves false statements; duress involves pressure without necessarily any falsehood.	Fraud vitiates consent through deception; duress vitiates consent through coercion. They address different failures of the assent process.
Pre-Existing Duty Rule	When a party threatens to breach unless paid more, the modification may lack consideration under the pre-existing duty rule AND be voidable for duress. These are independent but complementary defenses.	Pre-existing duty rule addresses consideration; duress addresses voluntariness. Under the UCC (§2-209), modifications need no consideration, making duress the primary defense.
Lack of Capacity	Undue influence often targets parties with diminished capacity (elderly, mentally impaired). A party may lack capacity AND be subject to undue influence. Either defense independently makes the contract voidable.	Capacity is a threshold question about the party's mental ability to understand the transaction; undue influence is about the process of persuasion applied to that party.

Duress & Undue Influence in the Broader Doctrinal Landscape

⚠

Ratification and Waiver

A critical advanced concept: because contracts procured by duress or undue influence are voidable rather than void (except in cases of physical compulsion), the aggrieved party may ratify the contract by continuing to perform after the duress has ceased, by accepting benefits under the contract, or by failing to disaffirm within a reasonable time. On the bar exam, look for facts showing the victim continued performing after the threat was removed—this may indicate ratification and cut off the duress defense.

Looking ahead, these doctrines connect to broader themes in contract law and legal theory. The economic analysis of contract law examines whether duress and undue influence rules promote efficient contracting by ensuring that transactions reflect genuine preferences rather than coerced acquiescence. From a policy perspective, the expansion of duress from physical force to economic pressure reflects the law's adaptation to a commercial economy in which financial threats can be as devastating as physical ones. As you study other defenses to formation—mistake, impossibility, and frustration—notice the common thread: each doctrine serves as a safety valve that allows courts to refuse enforcement when the conditions for meaningful consent were absent.

SECTION 9

Practice Problems

Question 1: CONCEPTUAL

Explain the distinction between a contract that is void due to physical compulsion under Restatement §174 and a contract that is voidable due to duress by threat under §175. Why does the law draw this distinction, and what practical consequences follow from it?

Show answer

A contract is void under §174 when physical compulsion is so extreme that the victim's conduct is not a voluntary act at all—for example, when someone physically guides the victim's hand to sign a document. In this case, no manifestation of assent exists, and the contract is a nullity from inception. No party can enforce it, it cannot be ratified, and third parties cannot acquire rights under it. By contrast, a contract is voidable under §175 when assent was induced by an improper threat leaving no reasonable alternative. Here, the victim did make a choice—albeit a coerced one—and a manifestation of assent exists. The contract is enforceable unless and until the victim elects to avoid it. This means the victim may also choose to ratify it, and a bona fide purchaser who acquires rights before avoidance may be protected. The distinction reflects the law's recognition that there is a qualitative difference between the complete absence of volition and the corruption of volition.

Question 2: BASIC APPLICATION

Landlord tells Tenant: "If you don't sign this new lease at $500/month more than our current agreement, I will change the locks tomorrow." Tenant has six months remaining on the current lease and knows it would take at least two months to find comparable space. Tenant signs the new lease. Does Tenant have a claim for duress? Identify each element.

Show answer

Tenant likely has a valid duress claim. First, the threat is improper: Landlord is threatening to breach the existing lease by locking Tenant out—a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing under §176(1)(d), and potentially a tortious wrongful eviction under §176(1)(a). Second, Tenant has no reasonable alternative: with six months remaining on the current lease and a two-month timeline to find comparable space, Tenant cannot simply refuse and absorb the consequences without suffering significant harm. Third, the threat induced Tenant's assent—Tenant signed the new lease solely because of the threatened lockout. All elements of duress by threat under §175 are satisfied, and the new lease is voidable at Tenant's election. Tenant should act promptly to disaffirm and should not continue paying the increased rent after the coercion ceases, as continued performance could constitute ratification.

Question 3: INTERMEDIATE

Eleanor, age 82, lives alone and relies entirely on her nephew Marcus for transportation, grocery shopping, and social interaction. Marcus tells Eleanor: "I've been thinking about your estate plan. You should really update your will to leave the house to me—after all, I'm the one taking care of you. I've already called the attorney; she's on her way over right now. Let's get this done today so you don't have to worry about it." Eleanor, who had previously planned to divide her estate equally among her three nieces and nephews, signs the new will that afternoon. Analyze whether Marcus exercised undue influence.

Show answer

This fact pattern strongly suggests undue influence under Restatement §177. First, Eleanor is under Marcus's domination: she depends on him for essential daily needs including transportation and social interaction, creating a relationship of dependency. Second, Marcus engaged in unfair persuasion, as evidenced by several Odorizzi factors: (a) he created urgency by having the attorney arrive the same day, pressuring immediate action; (b) he discouraged deliberation by framing the transaction as something to "get done today"; (c) he leveraged the relationship by implying that his caretaking justified the bequest; and (d) Eleanor was isolated from other family members who might have advised her. Additionally, because Marcus occupied a position of trust and the transaction significantly benefited him at the expense of Eleanor's other relatives, a court might presume undue influence and shift the burden to Marcus to demonstrate that the will was a product of Eleanor's independent judgment. Marcus would need to show that Eleanor had access to independent legal advice, understood the consequences of her decision, and acted voluntarily—which the facts do not support.

Question 4: APPLIED

TechStart, a small software company, contracts with CloudHost to provide essential cloud-hosting services for $10,000/month. After TechStart migrates all of its data and operations to CloudHost's platform—a process that took three months—CloudHost announces a price increase to $25,000/month, effective in 30 days. CloudHost states: "If you don't accept the new pricing, we will terminate your service at the end of the 30-day period. Your data will be deleted per our standard terms." TechStart estimates that migrating to a new provider would take at least 90 days and would cause catastrophic downtime. TechStart agrees to the new pricing. Six months later, TechStart completes its migration to a competitor and seeks to recover the excess payments. Analyze TechStart's duress claim, including any potential defenses CloudHost might raise.

Show answer

TechStart has a strong economic duress claim. The threat—termination of essential services and deletion of data—is improper under §176(1)(d) as a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, particularly given that CloudHost waited until TechStart was fully locked into the platform before demanding a 150% price increase. Under §176(2), the new terms are not fair (a 150% increase with no additional services), and the effectiveness of the threat was increased by CloudHost's awareness of TechStart's dependency. TechStart had no reasonable alternative: a 90-day migration timeline versus a 30-day deadline, combined with the threat of catastrophic data loss, left TechStart with no practical choice. CloudHost might raise several defenses: (1) that the termination clause in the original contract permitted termination with 30 days' notice, making the threat of a lawful act; (2) that TechStart ratified the new pricing by continuing to pay for six months without protest. The first defense is weak because even a contractually authorized act can be improper when used as leverage for unconscionable terms. The ratification defense is stronger: TechStart's six months of continued performance could suggest acquiescence. However, TechStart can argue that it continued paying only because it was still locked in and was actively working toward migration—the duress did not cease until TechStart had a viable alternative. Courts have recognized that a party need not refuse performance while still under the coercive conditions. TechStart should be able to recover the excess $15,000/month for the six-month period, totaling $90,000 in restitution.

Question 5: CRITICAL THINKING

Consider the following: Party A threatens to file a legitimate breach-of-contract lawsuit against Party B unless Party B agrees to settle a wholly unrelated dispute on terms favorable to A. Party B, unable to afford the legal fees of defending the lawsuit, agrees. Does A's threat constitute duress even though A has a legitimate legal right to file the breach-of-contract suit? Analyze the tensions between the right to litigate and the doctrine of duress, and discuss how courts should resolve this issue under the Restatement framework. Consider whether your analysis would change if A's threatened lawsuit were frivolous.

Show answer

This problem exposes a fundamental tension in duress doctrine: the intersection of a party's legitimate legal rights with the improper-threat analysis of §176. Under §176(2)(a), a threat is improper if the resulting exchange is not on fair terms and the threatened act would harm the recipient without significantly benefiting the party making the threat. Here, A's lawsuit is legitimate, but its use to extract settlement of an unrelated claim arguably constitutes a use of power for illegitimate ends under §176(2)(c). Courts have recognized that even a threat to exercise a legal right can be improper when the right is used as coercive leverage for an unrelated purpose—the right to sue on Claim X does not include the right to weaponize that claim to extract concessions on Claim Y. However, this analysis creates discomfort: parties routinely resolve multiple disputes in package settlements, and allowing duress claims in such contexts could chill legitimate settlement negotiations. The key distinction courts should draw is between (1) a good-faith offer to resolve multiple disputes simultaneously and (2) the instrumentalization of one claim as a weapon to coerce resolution of another on unfair terms. If A's lawsuit were frivolous, the analysis becomes simpler: a threat to file a frivolous suit constitutes bad-faith use of civil process under §176(1)(c), making the threat clearly improper. The more interesting and difficult case is the one presented—where the underlying right is legitimate but its deployment is strategically coercive. The Restatement's flexible multi-factor approach under §176(2) accommodates this nuance, but the application requires careful case-by-case analysis of whether the total circumstances reveal coercion masquerading as negotiation.

SUMMARY

Lesson Summary

Summary

The doctrines of duress and undue influence protect the principle that enforceable contracts require genuine voluntary assent. Physical compulsion under Restatement §174 renders a contract void because no act of assent occurs. Duress by threat under §175 requires an improper threat (as defined in §176) that leaves the victim with no reasonable alternative, making the contract voidable. Economic duress applies this framework to commercial pressure, typically involving a threatened breach of an existing contractual duty.

Undue influence under §177 involves unfair persuasion of a party who is under the domination of the influencer or is justified in assuming the influencer will act in the victim's interest. The Odorizzi factors—unusual timing, unusual location, urgency, isolation, multiple persuaders, and discouragement from seeking advice—provide the analytical framework. Key distinctions to remember: duress involves overt threats while undue influence involves relational manipulation; the burden of proof may shift in undue influence cases involving fiduciary relationships; and voidable contracts can be ratified if the victim fails to disaffirm promptly after the coercive conditions cease. On the bar exam, identify the type of pressure, apply the appropriate elements, and assess whether the victim had alternatives and acted timely.