Radford v. Keith

17 Citing cases

  1. Superior Performers, Inc. v. Meaike

    1:13CV1149 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2014)   Cited 14 times
    Finding two-year restriction on solicitation to be reasonable, citing Triangle Leasing Co. v. McMahon, 393 S.E.2d 854 (N.C. 1990) and Kennedy v. Kennedy, 584 S.E.2d 328 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)

    However, "[d]uress exists where one, by the unlawful act of another, is induced to make a contract or perform or forego some act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of free will." Radford v. Keith, 160 N.C. App. 41, 43-44, 584 S.E.2d 815, 817 (2003) (emphasis added) (quoting Smithwick v. Whitley, 152 N.C. 369, 371, 67 S.E. 913, 914 (1910)) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd per curiam, 358 N.C. 136, 591 S.E.2d 519 (2004). "By duress, in its more extended sense, is meant that degree of severity, either threatened and impending, or actually inflicted, which is sufficient to overcome the mind and will of a person of ordinary firmness." Id. at 45, 584 S.E.2d at 818 (quoting Edwards v. Bowden, 107 N.C. 58, 60, 12 S.E. 58, 58 (1890)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

  2. Elrod v. WakeMed

    No. 21-2203 (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    "Duress exists where one, by the unlawful act of another, is induced to make a contract or perform or forego some act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of free will." Radford v. Keith, 584 S.E.2d 815, 817 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (citation omitted).

  3. Lonesource, Inc. v. United Stationers Supply Co.

    No. 5:11-CV-33-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    A party asserting duress must show a wrong or unlawful act that induces the claimant to act under circumstances depriving the claimant of the exercise of free will. See Link v. Link, 278 N.C. 181, 194, 179 S.E.2d 697, 704-05 (1971); Smithwick v. Whitley, 152 N.C. 369, 67 S.E. 913, 914 (1910); Radford v. Keith, 160 N.C. App. 41,43-44, 584 S.E.2d 815, 817-18 (2003). Lonesource contends that United threatened to stop supplying Lonesource.

  4. VF Jeanswear Ltd. Partnership v. Molina

    320 F. Supp. 2d 412 (M.D.N.C. 2004)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that “[w]hen a release is executed in exchange for valuable consideration, the release provides a complete defense ...”

    To demonstrate the existence of duress, Molina must proffer evidence that VF Jeanswear's conduct was unlawful or wrong, that Molina was coerced into signing the agreement, and that Molina's consent to the agreement was involuntary because VF Jeanswear prevented Molina from exercising his free will. See Radford v. Keith, 160 N.C. App. 41, 44, 584 S.E.2d 815, 817-18 (2003). Molina characterizes his situation as "an intolerable choice: Either he sign an Agreement which he had repeatedly complained was unfair and unlawful under Honduran law, or he would be stranded in a foreign country without pay and the ability to move his family back home."

  5. Dmarcian, Inc. v. DMARC Advisor BV

    CIVIL 1:21-cv-00067-MR (W.D.N.C. May. 1, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    “Duress exists where one, by the unlawful act of another, is induced to make a contract or perform or forego some act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of free will.” Radford v. Keith, 160 N.C.App. 41, 43-44, 584 S.E.2d 815, 817 (2003). A threatened act is unlawful “if made with the corrupt intent to coerce a transaction grossly unfair to the victim and not related to the subject of such proceedings.”

  6. Holland v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg.

    DOCKET NO. 5:14-cv-00176-MOC (W.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Complaint at ¶ 95. A person who threatens to do that which he or she may lawfully do cannot be held to have intentionally inflicted emotional distress. United States v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers, 669 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2011); Radford v. Keith, 160 N.C.App. 41 (2003). Plaintiffs have, therefore, failed to state any cognizable IIED claim against any defendant.

  7. Holland v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg.

    DOCKET NO. 5:14-cv-00176-MOC (W.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2015)

    Complaint at \ 95. A person who threatens to do that which he or she may lawfully do cannot be held to have intentionally inflicted emotional distress. United States v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers, 669 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2011); Radford v. Keith, 160 N.C.App. 41 (2003). Plaintiffs have, therefore, failed to state any cognizable IIED claim against any defendant.

  8. Performance Sales Mktg. v. Lowe's Companies

    5:07cv140 (W.D.N.C. Jun. 4, 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that in order to prove tortious interference with contract, a party must show: 1

    Duress exists where one party to a contract, by the wrongful act of another, is induced to enter the contract under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of free will.Radford v. Keith, 584 S.E.2d 815, 817 (2003) (citation omitted). A simple breach of contract by itself is not sufficient to state a claim for duress, George Shinn Sports, Inc. v. Bahakel Sports, Inc., 393 S.E.2d 580, 584 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990), especially where the other party has an adequate remedy at law, Rose v. Vulcan Materials Co., 194 S.E.2d 521, 536 (N.C. 1973).

  9. Outer Banks Ventures, Inc. v. Tinkham (In re Outer Banks Ventures, Inc.)

    556 B.R. 199 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2016)

    The factual allegations in this case are a far cry from those which courts have found sufficient to state a claim for or constitute duress. SeePerformance Sales & Mktg., 2010 WL 2294323, at *7 (defendant threatened to withhold money that was essential to the continuation of plaintiff's business operations); Radford v. Keith, 160 N.C.App. 41, 45–46, 584 S.E.2d 815, 818–19 (2003) (plaintiff was detained in defendant's office for two hours before she agreed to sign note); Fallston Finishing, Inc. v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 76 N.C.App. 347, 333 S.E.2d 321 (1985) (trial court erred in refusing to submit issue of economic duress to jury; plaintiffs had two options: enter agreement, or watch four companies collapse); Weaver, 37 N.C.App. at 297–98, 246 S.E.2d at 226–27 (defendants threatened to destroy the whole project if plaintiffs did not enter agreement); Rose, 282 N.C. at 666, 194 S.E.2d at 536 (plaintiffs options were to cede to defendant's demands or go out of business); Link v. Link, 278 N.C. 181, 195, 179 S.E.2d 697, 705 (1971) (evidence to support finding of duress where husband threatened to take children from wife to coerce her to transfer her property to him without consideration). The plaintiffs actually benefitted from the 2013 Note, which extended the maturity date on the previous advances despite the occurrence of defaults and released and substit

  10. Radford v. Keith

    591 S.E.2d 519 (N.C. 2004)

    Filed 6 February 2004 Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 584 S.E.2d 815 (2003), affirming a judgment entered 8 May 2002 by Judge John R. Jolly, Jr. in Superior Court, Brunswick County. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 December 2003. The Del Re' Law Firm, by Benedict J. Del Re' Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.Michael E. Mauney for defendant-appellants.