Legal Definitions - vis compulsiva

Vis compulsiva refers to a forceful coercion where one person compels another to act against their will, typically through threats, intimidation, or terror. It describes a situation where someone is forced to do something involuntarily due to intense pressure or menace.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Business Coercion

  A large corporation threatens a small startup with a frivolous but financially devastating lawsuit, along with a public smear campaign, unless the startup sells its innovative technology at a drastically undervalued price. Fearing bankruptcy and ruin, the startup's founders reluctantly agree to the sale.

  This scenario demonstrates vis compulsiva because the large corporation uses the threat of severe financial and reputational damage as a "menacing force" to compel the startup to sell its assets involuntarily, against its true commercial interest.

• Example 2: Personal Safety Threat

  During a home invasion, an intruder holds a family member at gunpoint and demands that another family member transfer a large sum of money from their online bank account. Fearing for their loved one's life, the family member complies with the demand.

  Here, the intruder's direct threat to a family member's life, enforced by a weapon, constitutes vis compulsiva. It forces the other family member to perform an action (transferring money) that they would never do voluntarily, purely out of terror and the need to protect their loved one.

• Example 3: Political Intimidation

  In a region controlled by an authoritarian regime, a local community leader is informed that if they do not publicly endorse the regime's new controversial policy, their family's business permits will be revoked, and their children will be denied access to higher education. Under this immense pressure, the leader makes the public endorsement despite privately disagreeing with the policy.

  This situation illustrates vis compulsiva as the regime exerts "compulsive force" through threats against the leader's family and livelihood. These threats compel the leader to act involuntarily by publicly supporting a policy they oppose, driven by fear of the severe consequences for their family.