The Law of Duress and the Economics of Credible Threats

Oren Bar-Gill and Omri Ben-Shahar

The Journal of Legal Studies, 2004, vol. 33, issue 2, 391-430

Abstract: This paper argues that enforcement of an agreement, reached under a threat to refrain from dealing, should be conditioned solely on the threat’s credibility. When a credible threat exists, enforcement promotes social welfare and the threatened party's interests. If agreements backed by credible threats were not enforceable, the threatening party would not extort them and would instead refrain from dealing—to the threatened party's detriment. The doctrine of duress, which invalidates such agreements, hurts the coerced party. By denying enforcement when a credible threat exists, the duress doctrine precludes the threatened party from making the commitment necessary to reach agreement. Paradoxically, the duress doctrine renders performance less likely, thereby reducing incentives to invest. The paper suggests that courts should replace the duress methodology with a credibility inquiry. It discusses factors that would be relevant under such an inquiry. Finally, it demonstrates applications of this approach to leading contract modification cases.

Date: 2004
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/421574 (text/html)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:33:y:2004:p:391-430

DOI: 10.1086/421574

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().