Shared Writing: Xerox Canada Ltd$.$ v$.$ GP Global Pacific Holdings Inc.

Xerox agreed to lease photocopying equipment to GP$.$ GP failed to pay the amounts owing under the lease. Xerox took steps to collect the unpaid amounts. It sent a demand letter to GP$.$ It entered into negotiations regarding restructuring the terms of the lease, agreeing to forbear from enforcing its rights while the discussions continued. GP retained a lawyer to assist in the negotiations. The parties entered into two new agreements; GP acknowledged in them that the agreements were not executed under duress. GP failed to make the payments set out in the new agreements. Xerox then repossessed the leased equipment. It demanded payment from GP of the amounts owing. It sued when payment was not made. GP claimed that the new agreements were signed under duress.

Did the Court rely upon GP$$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?