Question $1$ of $1$

ulium, ure verm us ure rease, ogrewg to ron vear $.$ n ts while the discussions continued. GP retained a lawyer to assist in the in thations. The parties entered into two new agreements; GP acknowledged makem that the agreements were not executed under duress. GP falled to the the payments set out in the new agreements. Xerox then repossessed sued leased equipment. It demanded payment from GP of the amounts owing. It signed under duress.

Did the Court rely upon GP$\text{'}$s acknowledgement that the new agreements were not signed under duress? Why or why not?

Should a court find economic distress when settlement agreements are negotiated between businesspeople through their lawyers? Why or why not?

Is the fact that a party is suffering from its own internal economic pressure a sufficient basis for a finding of duress? Why or why not?

Are demand letters, threats of litigation, final demands, or the potential involvement of legal counsel grounds for a finding of duress? Why or why not?