Duress Distractor
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Contracts1
Example wrong choices
20782_preexisting-duty-christian-variant · CONTRACTS · Choice Athe men, because parties may renegotiate a contract when circumstances change.
Why it's attractive
No circumstances changed — the men faced the same work they always agreed to do. The choice invents a 'changed conditions' exception that doesn't apply.
Why it's wrong
No circumstances changed — the men faced the same work they always agreed to do. The choice invents a 'changed conditions' exception that doesn't apply.
20782_preexisting-duty-christian-variant · CONTRACTS · Choice Cthe men, because they reasonably relied on Peter's written promise of higher pay.
Why it's attractive
The men's 'reliance' was performing work they were already obligated to do. A promise to perform a pre-existing duty is not valid consideration, even if the promisee relies.
Why it's wrong
The men's 'reliance' was performing work they were already obligated to do. A promise to perform a pre-existing duty is not valid consideration, even if the promisee relies.
20782_preexisting-duty-christian-variant · CONTRACTS · Choice DPeter, because he agreed to the increase while under economic duress.
Why it's attractive
Duress is factually present but is not the most precise rule. The pre-existing duty rule attacks formation; duress attacks voluntariness. The formation-level rule is more complete.
Why it's wrong
Duress is factually present but is not the most precise rule. The pre-existing duty rule attacks formation; duress attacks voluntariness. The formation-level rule is more complete.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →