What distinguishes "duress" from "undue influence" in contracts?

The distinction between "duress" and "undue influence" primarily revolves around the nature of the pressure applied to obtain consent in a contractual agreement. Duress involves coercion, which means that one party is forced into the contract through threats, intimidation, or actual physical harm. This coercive pressure strips away the voluntary aspect of agreement, making the contract voidable by the party who was coerced.

On the other hand, undue influence occurs when one party takes advantage of their position of power over another party, leading to an imbalance in the negotiation process. This often involves manipulation or exploitation of a relationship, rather than outright coercion or threats. Thus, the correct choice highlights that duress revolves around clear acts of coercion against a party’s will, while undue influence affects the free will through relational dynamics and psychological pressure, without necessarily involving threats.

Regarding the other choices, they misrepresent the essential characteristics of duress and undue influence. For instance, duress does not apply exclusively to written contracts; it can be relevant in both written and oral arrangements. Similarly, undue influence does not rely on physical threats but rather on the exploitation of a relationship's trust. Lastly, a legal guardian's involvement is not a determinative factor for distinguishing between