Which legal doctrine allows a court to invalidate a contract that was formed under duress in Arizona?

The legal doctrine that allows a court to invalidate a contract formed under conditions of duress is the doctrine of duress. This principle recognizes that a contract is not enforceable if one party was compelled to enter into the agreement through wrongful threats or coercive tactics that deprived them of their free will. Under Arizona law, as in most jurisdictions, duress must demonstrate that the pressure exerted on the party was so significant that it negated their ability to make a voluntary, informed decision regarding the contract.

The essence of duress is that it involves illegitimate pressure, which may include physical threats, emotional distress, or threats to one's economic well-being. When a court finds that duress was present, it can void the contract because the consent of the aggrieved party was not genuine; they did not freely agree to the terms but were forced into compliance.

In contrast, the doctrine of undue influence involves situations where one party takes advantage of a position of power over another party, often in a relationship of trust. Unconscionability refers to contracts that are so one-sided and unfair that they shock the conscience, while estoppel prevents a party from arguing something contrary to a claim they have previously made, typically to maintain justice and fairness in legal