No, the deal is not automatically illegal. The court said that while paying someone just to be quiet can be illegal blackmail, this situation was different. Knafel wasn't just promising to keep a secret; she was also giving up her legal right to sue Jordan for paternity. Since she had a legitimate reason to take him to court, making a deal to avoid that lawsuit is a valid contract. The court decided it couldn't dismiss her case based only on the initial paperwork; a jury needs to hear the full story to decide if it was a fair settlement or an illegal threat.

No, the agreement isn't automatically wrong. Just because someone agrees to not talk about something in exchange for money doesn't mean it's bad. In this case, the woman had a reason to talk (a possible paternity suit), and the man wanted to keep it quiet. Whether this was a fair deal or not is something that needs to be looked at more closely in court. So, the court needs to look at the case again to decide if the agreement was fair.

No, such an agreement does not violate public policy as a matter of law. The court reasoned that while some contracts for silence can be extortionate, public policy strongly favors freedom of contract. Unlike pure blackmail, Knafel's alleged agreement was not merely an exchange of money for silence in a vacuum. Instead, it involved a twofold promise: her silence was coupled with her forbearance from filing a paternity suit, which is a legitimate, good-faith legal claim. Citing precedent like Kaplan v. Kaplan and Schumm v. Berg, the court held that threatening to file a legitimate lawsuit, even if it may cause personal embarrassment to the other party, does not constitute duress or extortion. Therefore, because the agreement was tied to a colorable claim of right, it cannot be deemed unenforceable on the pleadings alone; whether it was actually coercive or exploitive is a question of fact for a jury to decide.

No. The contract as alleged by Knafel is not inherently extortionate and unenforceable because it involves a good-faith claim of right to file a paternity suit and a confidentiality agreement, which is not necessarily coercive or exploitive. While contracts for silence can be unenforceable if they suppress important information, conceal criminal conduct, or are the result of extortion or blackmail, not all contracts for silence violate public policy. Here, there is an alleged nexus to a good-faith claim of right, distinguishing this case from those involving purely extortionate demands. The determination of whether this particular agreement was coercive or exploitive is a factual matter for the trier of fact. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing Knafel's counterclaim on the pleadings, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Jordan v. Knafel

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot