- CONTRACT SIGNED UNDER DURESS CODE
- CONTRACT SIGNED UNDER DURESS TRIAL
- CONTRACT SIGNED UNDER DURESS FREE
The power of a reviewing Court begins and ends with a determination of whether there is in the record substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which supports the result reached and this Court must assume in favor of the determination below the existence of every fact which the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence.
CONTRACT SIGNED UNDER DURESS FREE
Needham, 184 Cal.App.2d, 446, the court states: “Duress, which includes whatever destroys one’s free agency and constrains him to do what is against his will, may be exercised by threats, importunity or any species of mental coercion.” Furthermore, “the question in each case is, whether the person so acted upon by threats of the person claiming the benefit of the contract, for the purpose of obtaining such contract, as to be bereft of the quality of mind essential to the making of a contract, and was the contract thereby obtained? Hence, under this theory duress is to be tested, not by the nature of the threats, but rather by the state of mind induced thereby in the victim.” (17 Am.Jur., Duress and Undue Influence, pp. 1973) Contracts, §339, p.287.) Appellant’s acts fall within both a tort and a crime, and the decisional concept of duress. Menace is (1) a threat of unlawful confinement of the persons specified in the section, (2) a threat of unlawful and violent injury to the person or property of any such person. Actual confinement of a person or his property, as argued by Thomas’ Orange County divorce attorney is not required. However, Thomas’ Orange County divorce attorney’s interpretation of duress as defined by section 1569 is far too limited and does not take into consideration decisional law that has interpreted its language to apply to facts similar to this.
CONTRACT SIGNED UNDER DURESS CODE
Thomas’ Orange County divorce attorney argued that he did nothing that approximates duress as defined in Civil Code section 1569 because Virginia was not confined unlawfully or against her will, nor was her property unlawfully detained.
CONTRACT SIGNED UNDER DURESS TRIAL
The Orange County divorce court’s order directed that Thomas pays on account of services already rendered and services to be rendered in connection with a prospective trial of the property rights of the parties, $9,832,17 in attorney’s fees and accountant’s fees and costs on behalf of the Virginia. The judgment set aside the Marital Settlement Agreement executed by the parties on August 25, 197, on the grounds that Virginia had signed it as a result of duress, mistake of fact, and mistake of law. Thomas Gonzalez’s Orange County divorce attorney seeks review of a judgment and an order made during a dissolution proceeding initiated against him by Virginia Thorpe Gonzalez. A Marital Settlement Agreement Signed Under Duress Will Result in a Rescission of the Contract
0 kommentar(er)
