Are coerced agreements involuntary?

Law and Philosophy 3 (1):133 - 145 (1984)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is widely supposed that agreements made in response to coercion are entered into involuntarily for that reason. This paper argues that that supposition is false and that it has generated a good deal of avoidable confusion in the courts and among some legal commentators. Agreements entered into involuntarily of course, have no legal standing. But, on any plausible account of coercion, agreements entered into in response to coercion are an inevitability of social life. To prohibit them would be to prohibit many agreements we ought to and do enforce (e.g. labor agreements entered into under threat of strike). This is not to deny that agreements induced by certain uses of force or certain threats of force have and ought to have no standing. But here it is the type of force or threat that invalidates the agreement, not the use of coercion per se.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,199

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
36 (#326,335)

6 months
1 (#448,894)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Coercive Interference and Moral Judgment.Jan-Willem van der Rijt - 2011 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (5):549 - 567.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references