Snap-On manufactures and sells hand tools such as wrenches to professional mechanics. It sold a distributorship to Eulich, but he was not successful and encountered significant financial difficulties. In Eulich’s view his sales territory was too small. As a result Eulich terminated the dealership agreement. That agreement included a clause stating that on termination of the agreement, Snap-On might buy back any new tools owned by the distributor. Eulich attempted to turn in his tools but Snap-On delayed. Eulich’s financial situation deteriorated to the point where he was unable to pay his personal bills and his wife needed to be hospitalized, though he had no medical insurance. Snap-On knew this. Finally, Snap-On accepted the tools. Before paying for the tools, Snap-On asked Eulich to sign an agreement promising not to sue Snap- On for claims arising out of the distributorship. He signed but later sued. What factors do you think the court considered in deciding whether the agreement not to sue was based on duress? (Eulich v. Snap-On Tool Corp., 853 P.2d 1350)