The statement provided is: "A contract induced by physical duress-threat of bodily harm-is void; a contract induced by improper threats-another type of duress-is voidable. True or False?"
Let's break it down:
1. A contract induced by physical duress, which involves threats of bodily harm, is considered void. This means that if one party uses physical force or threats of violence to compel the other party to enter into a contract, that contract is not legally enforceable. Physical duress undermines the voluntary nature of contract formation and goes against the principles of contract law.
2. On the other hand, a contract induced by improper threats, which is another type of duress, is voidable. Improper threats may include threats of legal action, economic harm, or social harm that coerce a party into entering a contract against their will. In this case, the contract is not automatically void but can be voided at the option of the aggrieved party who was subjected to the improper threats.
Therefore, the statement is **True**. It correctly differentiates between contracts induced by physical duress, which are void, and contracts induced by improper threats, which are voidable. These distinctions are important in understanding the legal implications of duress in contract law.
