Legal Definitions - doctrine of coercion

The doctrine of coercion is a legal principle that recognizes when an individual's actions or agreements are not truly voluntary because they were compelled by force, threats, or undue pressure. This doctrine is crucial in various areas of law, as it can invalidate contracts, excuse certain behaviors, or affect the admissibility of evidence, based on the understanding that genuine consent or intent was absent.

Here are some examples illustrating the doctrine of coercion:

• Contract Law: Imagine a small business owner who is struggling financially. A larger, more powerful competitor approaches them and threatens to launch a massive advertising campaign designed to bankrupt the small business unless the owner agrees to sell their company for a fraction of its true value. Fearing ruin, the owner signs the sale agreement.

  In this scenario, the small business owner could later invoke the doctrine of coercion to argue that the contract is invalid. Their consent to sell was not freely given but was compelled by the severe economic threat, meaning the agreement was made under duress and should not be legally binding.

• Criminal Law (Defense): Consider a situation where an individual is held at gunpoint by a group of criminals and forced to drive them to a bank where they commit a robbery. The criminals explicitly threaten to harm the driver's family if they refuse to cooperate.

  If the driver is later charged as an accomplice to the robbery, they could use the doctrine of coercion as a defense. They would argue that they participated in the crime not out of criminal intent, but because they were under immediate and severe threat, lacking the free will to refuse. This defense might mitigate or even excuse their culpability.

• Family Law / Estate Planning: An elderly person, who relies heavily on one of their adult children for daily care and financial management, is repeatedly pressured by that child to change their will. The child threatens to withhold care or restrict access to grandchildren if the parent does not disinherit their other children and leave the entire estate to the pressuring child.

  After the parent's passing, the disinherited children could challenge the will based on the doctrine of coercion (often overlapping with undue influence in this context). They would argue that the changes to the will do not reflect the true wishes of their parent but were the result of the coercive tactics and threats employed by the other sibling, thus rendering the will invalid.