A landlord owned a house occupied by a tenant. The landlord sought to demolish the house and construct a commercial building on the property, which would be far more lucrative. The landlord offered the tenant $25,000 to terminate the lease and move out early. The tenant accepted. On the day the tenant was scheduled to move out and demolition begin, the tenant told the landlord, "Gee, I'm not really sure I'm ready to leave this place. I have all these beautiful paintings hanging on my walls that won't fit in my new apartment. But maybe if you'd buy my paintings so I know they have a good home, I would feel more comfortable moving out. I'd be willing to sell them to you for $20,000." The landlord and the tenant both knew that the paintings were actually worthless. The landlord could have brought eviction proceedings against the tenant, but doing so would have taken months. Further, the landlord would lose millions of dollars if demolition and construction were delayed. The landlord agreed to buy the worthless paintings from the tenant for $20,000. The landlord later sought to void the contract on the grounds of duress.

Is a court likely to void the contract based on duress?

Group of answer choices

Yes, because the tenant made an improper threat that left the landlord with no reasonable alternative.

Yes, because the tenant has significantly more bargaining power than the landlord.

No, because the tenant did not threaten to commit a criminal act against the landlord.

No, because the tenant did not explicitly threaten not to leave.