constitutes possibility wrongful duress threat damages
Few areas of the law of contracts have undergone such radical changes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as has the law governing duress. In Blackstone’s time relief from an agreement on grounds of duress was a （1） only if it was coerced by actual (not threatened) imprisonment or fear of loss of life or limb. “A fear of battery ... is no（2）; neither is the fear of having one’s house burned, or one’s goods taken away or destroyed;” he wrote, “because in these cases, should the （3）be performed, a man may have satisfaction by recovering equivalent（4）: but no suitable atonement can be made for the loss of life, or limb.” Today the general rule is that any （5）act or threat which overcomes the free will of a party （6）duress. This simple statement of the law conceals a number of questions, particularly as to the meaning of “free will” and “wrongful”.
A. criminal-justice system
B. capacity defense
C. due process
D. degree of crime
（1） A defense based on the defendant’s inability to be held accountable for an illegal act or the plaintiff’s inability to prosecute a lawsuit (as when the plaintiff was a corporation, but has lost its corporate charter.
（2） A division or classification of a single crime into several grades of guilt, according to the circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission, such as aggravating factors present or the type of injury suffered.
（3） The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case.
（4） Strictly, the physical confinement of a person or the detention of a contracting party’s property. In the field of torts, duress is considered a species of fraud in which compulsion takes the place of deceit in causing injury.
（5） The collective institutions through which an accused offender passes until the accusa-tions have been disposed of or the assessed punishment concluded.
（1） As a separate affirmative defense to all purported claims for relief, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claims under Complaint are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
（2） I am over the age of eighteen, suffer on legal disabilities, have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below, and am competent to testify.
（3） The Tribunal finds that the quantity of the Goods under the Contact is 4000mts according to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Contract. The Tribunal decides that the tolerance allowed by Clause 4 and Clause 5 of the Contract is only applied to the Goods actually shipped. The Respondent did not deliver the Goods according to the Contract, so the tolerance of the Contract is not applied and the damages should be assessed on the basis of 4,000mts.
（4） If the defendant does not accept this judgment, he may, within 10 days between the second and tenth day from the day after receiving this Judgment, appeal either through this court or directly appeal to the High People's Court of Shanghai. A written appeal should be submitted with one original and two copies.