Maxim 7.2.9
He is not considered to have consented who has altered something under the direction of a threatening party.
Non videtur consensum retinuisse si quis ex praescripto minantis aliquid immutavit.
Source: Dig. 50, 17, 145
Difficulty 1/5 — Foundational
Explanation
Consent procured by threat or coercion is no consent at all — where duress overbears the will, the apparent agreement is void and the party compelled is not bound.
Where this applies
- I changed my business practices because my competitor threatened to destroy me if I didn't.
- I signed the agreement because they threatened my family.
Topics
See also
Cite this maxim
NeCede Max. 7.2.9 — He is not considered to have consented who has altered something under the direction of a threatening party. — Dig. 50, 17, 145 (Non videtur consensum retinuisse si quis ex praescripto minantis aliquid immutavit.)
Found an error? Suggest a correction →