Lexplug logoLexplug

Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton Development, Inc.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
204 Cal. Rptr. 86, 157 Cal.App.3d 1154 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A settlement agreement or release may be invalidated for economic duress when it is the product of a wrongful act, such as a bad faith refusal to pay a known debt, that is sufficiently coercive to cause a reasonably prudent person with no reasonable alternative to succumb to the pressure.


Facts:

  • Rich & Whillock, Inc. entered into a contract with Bob Britton, Inc. to provide grading and excavating services for a project developed by Ashton Development, Inc.
  • The contract specified that any rock encountered would be an extra charge.
  • After encountering rock, Bob Britton directed Rich & Whillock to proceed with the extra work and bill for it, which they did.
  • Rich & Whillock performed the work and submitted a final bill for an outstanding balance of $72,286.45.
  • Britton refused to pay the full amount, claiming he and Ashton Development were short on funds, despite having no prior complaints about the work or billing.
  • Whillock informed Britton that their new company would "go broke" if not paid.
  • Knowing of Rich & Whillock's financial vulnerability, Britton offered a final payment of $50,000 on a "take it or leave it" basis, stating their only other option was to sue.
  • To avoid bankruptcy, Rich signed the compromise agreement and later a release, stating at the time that he viewed it as "blackmail" and was only signing to survive.

Procedural Posture:

  • Rich & Whillock, Inc. filed an action for damages for breach of contract against Ashton Development, Inc. and Bob Britton, Inc. in the trial court.
  • After a nonjury trial, the court found in favor of Rich & Whillock, Inc.
  • The trial court ruled that the settlement agreement and release were unenforceable due to economic duress and awarded Rich & Whillock, Inc. the remaining contract balance of $22,286.45.
  • Ashton Development, Inc. and Bob Britton, Inc. (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to this court (the intermediate appellate court), with Rich & Whillock, Inc. as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a party's bad faith refusal to pay a legitimate debt, knowing the creditor is facing imminent financial ruin without payment, constitute economic duress sufficient to render a subsequent settlement agreement and release unenforceable?


Opinions:

Majority - Wiener, J.

Yes, a party's bad faith refusal to pay a known debt, knowing the creditor faces financial ruin, constitutes economic duress that can render a settlement agreement unenforceable. The doctrine of economic duress applies when a wrongful act by one party is coercive enough to cause a reasonably prudent person, who has no reasonable alternative, to agree to an unfair deal. The court clarified that a "wrongful act" does not have to be a tort or a crime; a bad faith threat to withhold a payment that is rightfully owed qualifies. Here, Britton and Ashton Development acted in bad faith by refusing to pay a legitimate bill. They knew Rich & Whillock was a new company facing imminent bankruptcy and exploited this vulnerability to force them to accept a lesser amount. Rich & Whillock had no reasonable alternative, as the only other option, litigation, would not have averted their financial ruin. Therefore, the settlement and release were products of duress and are unenforceable.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the modern doctrine of economic duress in California, clarifying that the required "wrongful act" need not be illegal, but can include a bad faith breach of contract or refusal to pay. The case is significant for establishing that exploiting a known, dire financial vulnerability to extract a settlement constitutes coercion. It provides a crucial precedent for smaller businesses and contractors, empowering them to challenge settlement agreements that were signed under the threat of financial ruin, thereby promoting fairer business practices in dispute resolution.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton Development, Inc. (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"