{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015759312320916905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.9743589743589745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Investments to Make Threats Credible, Rent-Seeking, and Duress

Existing literature on the contract law doctrine of duress identifies a number of tests to determine conditions under which a contract can be voided. No article provides a specific and formal economic analysis on the link between rent- seeking and the conditions under which allowing a defense of duress is wealth enhancing. This article shows that commitments made as a result of ex ante investments by threatening parties made solely for the purpose of transferring, rather than creating wealth, ought to be voidable. We discuss cases in which a test based on rent-seeking enhances efficiency where previously proposed tests do not.