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.

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 rm 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 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 rm to avoid going to jail, when in fact this was false, Daigle might have an additional defense of as a reason to avoid paying the note. fraud misrepresentation by concealment mistake of law