Bindinglaw

CT · jury_instructions

Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 4.2-16

Defense - Duress

activein force · 2011-12-09 – presentas-observed

The defendant claims that if the <specify transaction> existed, it is not enforceable because

(he/she/it) agreed to it under duress.

To demonstrate duress, the defendant must prove three elements. First, the defendant agreed to

the alleged <specify transaction> because of a wrongful act or threat by the plaintiff. In this

case, the defendant claims that the wrongful act(s) or threat(s) (is/are) <insert threat/wrongful act

alleged>. Second, the wrongful act or threat induced a fearful state of mind in the defendant that

left (him/her/it) no reasonable alternative but to agree to the <specify transaction>. Third, the

defendant otherwise would not have agreed to the <specify transaction> absent the wrongful

act(s) or threat(s).

Provenance

Source
jud.ct.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-23
Edition
2026-08-23
Content hash
6284885985ea737bee5440346b0629b80f325a41e0f1b2eb5c9aade54fa26685
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 4.2-16 — Defense - Duress · binding.law