Further, the court is persuaded by other indicators that the plaintiffs acted freely and voluntarily: Willis and Brindley were experienced developers; the parties had many dealings with each other, as evidenced through the Agreement, 2011 Note, 2013 Note, and the various other advancements and substitutions of collateral; and the 2013 Note contains language whereby Brindley, as vice president of the debtor, acknowledges receipt of adequate consideration. These dealings evidence the “considerable free-will bargaining between them,” as ultimately resolved by the 2013 Note. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 114 N.C.App. 393, 399, 442 S.E.2d 133, 136 (1994) (various factors led court to find plaintiff did not act under economic duress). “This bargaining process eliminates any validity to plaintiff[s'] argument that [they] entered into the agreement only because [they were] faced with circumstances amounting to duress.”
“Duress exists when a person, by an unlawful or wrongful 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.” Reynolds v. Reynolds, 114 N.C.App. 393, 398–99, 442 S.E .2d 133, 136 (1994) (citation and quotation omitted). “An act is wrongful if made with the corrupt intent to coerce a transaction grossly unfair to the victim and not related to the subject of such proceedings.”
"Duress exists when a person, by an unlawful or wrongful 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." Reynolds v. Reynolds , 114 N.C. App. 393, 398-99, 442 S.E.2d 133, 136 (1994) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Defendant does not assert he was deprived of his free will or was compelled or forced to execute the offer to purchase and contract upon the terms stated therein.