Talk:Duress in American law

Has anyone heard of a mortgage company using duress to get mortgages signed?

I've added some things on contract law to do with duress - however it's Australian-centric - other users might like to add things based on their own country. Enochlau 09:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article needs revision

To begin with, the article should be renamed to Duress in American law. It is quite problematic to have the article entitled Duress covering American law only, while having a separate article for Duress in English law.

Aside from that, the entire article reads like somebody's opinion rather than actual fact. Statements like "It is extremely unlikely that a state would exclude a class of persons from liability for acting under duress" do not belong in an encyclopedia article on a legal topic -- rather the article should say which states exclude liability for acting under duress and which do not. --Mathew5000 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is weird that the introduction says necessity might be considered a form of duress. Usually it is the other way around: duress is considered a special form of necessity. --Mathew5000 01:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duress and threats

I am wondering if anyone has information about duress defenses when for example, a person is told that 5 hostages will be killed if the person does not kill 1 person and there is no way to get out of the situation. Can that person claim duress, considering that 5 people dead are usually considered worse than 1 person dead, though both are obviously undesirable.

Needs work

The two sentences in the WP:lede are very confusing:

The notion of duress must be distinguished both from undue influence in the civil law. In criminal law, duress and necessity are different defenses.^[1]^[2]

Perhaps they should read:

Duress has two meanings:

(1) A form of undue influence in civil law

(2) An affirmative defense in criminal law. See duress and necessity^[3]^[4]

Is it acceptable for me to make the change, if I understand it correctly? Perhaps, it is an affirmative defense in contract law?

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Citations
^ People v. Unger, 362 N.E.2d 319 (1977) ^ Handbook on Criminal Law 381 (1972) ^ People v. Unger, 362 N.E.2d 319 (1977) ^ Handbook on Criminal Law 381 (1972)

SÙNG MÍ MẮT

Makakskdnndn 2402:800:61EB:736C:61D6:E2A:BACB:690 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] People v. Unger, 362 N.E.2d 319 (1977)

[2] Handbook on Criminal Law 381 (1972)

[3] People v. Unger, 362 N.E.2d 319 (1977)

[4] Handbook on Criminal Law 381 (1972)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]