Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:08:11 -0500 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: "freebsd-questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Mail etiquette Message-ID: <17840.49851.514218.652819@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <013901c73b9b$8b074e70$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> References: <04E232FDCD9FBE43857F7066CAD3C0F126733D@svmailmel.bytecraft.internal> <45B01FEC.1030008@chapman.edu> <013901c73b9b$8b074e70$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > For example, you can hold a gun to someone's head and make them > sign a contract. The second you walk away they take the contract > to a court and bam, it's invalidated because they signed under > duress. > > And if you look at recent court decisions, the definition of > signing under duress has been -exceedingly- stretched these days. > Nowadays if someone can convince a court that the contract holder > didn't completely inform them of every last little condition, they > can invalidate the contract. "Consent" in the legal sense has two usually omitted qualifiers: "fully informed" and "freely given". Duress negates the second; failure to provide adequate information can negate the first. That being said, it may wall be the case the working definition of "adequate" has expanded over time. How it changed, and why, is no doubt the subject of ongoing enquiry. Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17840.49851.514218.652819>