The law firm of Traystman, Coric and Keramidas represented Andrew Daigle in a divorce in Norwich, Connecticut. Scott McGowan, an attorney with the firm, handled the two-day trial. After the first day of the trial, McGowan told Daigle to sign a promissory note in the amount of $26,973, which represented the amount that Daigle then owed to the firm, or McGowan would withdraw from the case, and Daigle would be forced to get another attorney or to continue the trial by himself. Daigle said that he wanted another attorney, Martin Rutchik, to see the note. McGowan urged Daigle to sign it and assured him that a copy would be sent to Rutchik. Feeling that he had no other choice, Daigle signed the note. When he did not pay, the law firm filed a suit in a Connecticut state court against him. Daigle asserted that the note was unenforceable because he had signed it under duress. [Traystman, Coric and Keramidas v. Daigle, 84 Conn.App. 843, 855 A.2d 996 (2004)]

QUESTION 10 If, in the divorce settlement, Daigle's wife received the house that was listed as 1.5 acres on the survey, but it was later discovered that the house was really 2.5 acres, Daigle v likely succeed in a lawsuit to rescind the contract based upon v becaus ./ will will not mutual mistake unilateral mistake Click Sa. both parties were mistaken about a material fact A \"Answers to save all answers once a contract is signed it may not be rescinded QUESTION 9 If Daigle's wife received the house, valued at $400,000, in the divorce settlement contract but it was later discovered that the house was really worth $1,000,000 Daigle succeed in a lawsuit to rescind the contract based upon because V may make a contract voidable for lack of mutual assent due to a mistake. will will not mutual mistake unilateral mistake QUESTION 10 any mistake in value only a mistake of factQUESTION 8 If the law rm had told Daigle that he should sign the note because his wife had led criminal charges against him for spousal abuse and he would need to ca the rm to avoid --oin to jail, when in fact this was false, Daigle might have an additional defense . .5 a reason to avoid paying the note. fraud misrepresentation by concealment mistake of law QUESTION 7 The fact that Traystman, Coric and Keramidas were Daigle's lawyers, Daigle might also try to argue that he can avoid paying the note based upon since the law firm owes Daigle its dealings with Daigle. no duty to speak undue influence mutual mistake of fact an arm's length transaction duty a fiduciary duty no duty hould sign the note because his wife had filed criminal charges against him forQUESTION 6 The fact that the law firm asked Daigle to sign the note after the first day of the trial or he would be forced to find another attorney or continue the trial by himsel V helps Daigle's case hurts Daigle's case is not significant to Daigle's case QUESTION 7 is typical in divorce proceedingsQUESTION 5 If a court finds that the promissory note is voidable because it was signed under duress, can rescind the contract. only Daigle only the law firm both Daigle and the law firmQUESTION 4 Daigle refused to pay the note, arguing that v , thereby challenging the V lement required for a valid contract. there was fraud involved in the contract execution there was a mutual mistake of fact it was signed under duress QUESTIC the law firm wasn't legally allowed to represent him agreement If a court finds consideration under duress, capacity legalityQUESTION 3 Traysman, Coric and Keramidas is a law firm that represented Andrew Daigle in his and Daigle signed a promissory note for $26,973 representing the amount after the la firm QUESTION 4 Daigle refused to pay the note, arguing that v, thereby challenging the element required for a valid contract. QUESTION 5 If a court finds that the promissory note is voidable because it was signed under duress, can rescind the contract.QUESTION 6 The fact that the law firm asked Daigle to sign the note after the first day of the trial or he would be forced to nd another attorney or continue the trial by himself v QUESTION 7 The fact that Traystman. Coric and Keramidas were Daigle's lawyers, Daigle might also try to argue that he can avoid paying the note based upon v since the law rm owes Daigle v in its dealings with Daigle. QUESTION 8 If the law firm had told Daigle that he should sign the note because his wife had filed criminal charges against him for spousal abuse and he would need to pay the firm to avoid going to jail, when in fact this was false, Daigle might have an additional defense of v as a reason to avoid paying the note. QUESTION 9 If Daigle's wife received the house, valued at $400,000, in the divorce settlement contract but it was later discovered that the house was really worth $1,000,000 Daigle v succeed in a lawsuit to rescind the contract based upon v because v may make a contract voidable for lack of mutual assent due to a mistake. QUESTION 10 If, in the divorce settlement, Daigle's wife received the house that was listed as 1.5 acres on the survey, but it was later discovered that the house was really 2.5 acres, Daigle v likely succeed in a lawsuit to rescind the contract based upon v because v . QUESTION 3 Traysman, Coric and Keramidas is a law firm that represented Andrew Daigle in his and Daigle signed a promissory note for $26,973 representing the amount after the law firm V business dealings divorce Daigle owed his wife Daigle owed the law firm threatened to withdraw from the case after the first day of the trial Da represented Daigle and won the case for him v , thereby