| Court: | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
| Facts: | Wurtz owns a hotel on Lake Geneva. He wants to cash out, and his realtor decides that he'll buy it. There is a lot of financing needed. In lieu of cash, Wurtz agrees to accept a McDonald's in New Mexica, and a warehouse in Delavan. At the last minute, Wurtz asks for an additional $50K. Fleischman, who will be ruined if the transaction doesn't go through, agrees to give him his $47K interest in another business. The transaction goes through, but then Fleischman won't transfer the interest in the business. |
| Posture: | Finding for paintiff at trial. Defendant appeals. |
| Issue: | Was this a wrongful threat, and if so, was this the thing that induced Fleischman's consent? |
| Holding: | Reversed. |
| Rule: | Several, but the main thing seems to be that duress can be a cause of action. |
| Reasoning: | They pursue a tort theory. There's a DUTY to exercise superior economic power reasonably. Wurtz had superior economic power, and was subject to that duty. A breach does not necessarily mean something unlawful: Wurtz's actions did not meet the standard of commercial reasonableness. The breach has to cause harm: Fleischman has shown by the greater weight of credible evidence that legal remedy was inadequate in this case (i.e., because of timing troubles), so there was economic duress here. So there can be damages: the $47,500. |
| Dicta: | Economic duress should not be classed as an intentional tort: it should be a quasi-contract cause of action to prevent unjust enrichment. Damages should be limited, in other words. |