S.P. Dunham & Company v. Kudra
131 A.2d 306 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A payment made to recover unlawfully withheld goods is considered made under economic duress, or business compulsion, and is recoverable if the payor was constrained to make the payment to avoid serious harm to its business goodwill.
Facts:
- S.P. Dunham & Company (Dunham), a department store, leased its fur department to a concessionaire, Elmer A. Hurwitz & Co. (Hurwitz).
- Hurwitz contracted with George M. Kudra (Kudra) to store and clean fur coats left by Dunham's customers.
- In November 1955, Hurwitz went bankrupt, at which time Kudra was in possession of 412 garments belonging to Dunham's customers.
- Hurwitz owed Kudra $622.50 for services on the 412 garments currently held, and an additional $3,232.55 for services on garments that had already been returned to customers over the preceding two years.
- As winter approached, Dunham's customers began demanding their coats.
- Kudra refused to release the 412 coats unless Dunham paid the entire debt owed by Hurwitz, totaling $3,855.05.
- Faced with pressure from customers and fearing serious damage to its business goodwill, Dunham paid the full amount demanded by Kudra to retrieve the coats.
Procedural Posture:
- S.P. Dunham & Company sued George M. Kudra in a New Jersey trial court seeking restitution of $3,232.55.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, S.P. Dunham & Company.
- The defendants, George M. Kudra, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 payment made to a third party to recover goods belonging to one's customers, when made under threat of damaging business goodwill, constitute a recoverable payment under the doctrine of economic duress?
Opinions:
Majority - Clapp, S.J.A.D.
Yes. A payment made under these circumstances constitutes a payment under economic duress and is recoverable. The modern test for duress is not whether the act would overcome the will of a person of ordinary firmness, but rather whether the complaining party was constrained to do what they otherwise would not have done. Here, Kudra's refusal to return the coats put Dunham in a dire situation, threatening the store's goodwill with its customers as winter approached. The pressure Kudra brought to bear was the sole cause of Dunham's payment of the debt it did not owe. Although a legal remedy like replevin was technically available, it was not an adequate remedy because a public lawsuit would have exposed the arrangement to customers and damaged the very goodwill Dunham sought to protect. Kudra had no valid processor's or common-law artisan's lien for the past debt of $3,232.55, and thus their withholding of the goods was wrongful. Dunham's payment was not voluntary but was made for the relief of itself from a threatened injury to its own goodwill.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the evolution of the doctrine of economic duress, moving from a rigid, objective standard to a more flexible, subjective one. It significantly refines the rule regarding the availability of legal remedies, establishing that a remedy is not 'adequate' if pursuing it would cause the very harm the victim seeks to avoid, such as damage to business reputation. By recognizing the protection of business goodwill as a legitimate basis for a duress claim, the decision expands the scope of what constitutes business compulsion. This precedent makes it more difficult for a party to wrongfully withhold goods to extract payment for an unrelated debt, even if the victim has a theoretical path to relief in the courts.
Unlock the full brief for S.P. Dunham & Company v. Kudra