The waiters at Jim's restaurant, Gavin and Stuart, have been pestering Jim for weeks about getting an increase in their hourly rate. Jim repeatedly explains to Gavin and Stuart that he cannot agree to a pay rise without first speaking to his accountant, and that he will not have time to do so until the end of the month. Gavin and Stuart are becoming increasingly frustrated with Jim's refusal to consider their request for a pay rise. One Friday evening, during the busiest part of the shift, Gavin and Stuartconfront Jim and tell him that unless he agrees to increase their hourly rate by $5 per hour, they are going to walk out, leaving him to serve the customers on his own. Jim has no choice but to agree to their request. He promises to adjust their pay as requested.

The legal issue to be resolved:

Is Jim legally obliged to keep his promise? Focus upon whether or not Gavin and Stuart have engaged in duress.

this is the question i was given, i have attempted the issues of the IRAC with the marking criteria stating:

The area of law and the legal problem(s) to be addressed are identified and clearly and completely described.

4 marks

issues

The issue involved in this case is contractual law under the form of economic duress, through Gavin and Stuart the employees of Jim, engaging in threats to not serve customers by exploiting the trust of Jim during the peak time of their shift. Coercing Jim to agree to a verbal contract of paying the employees $5 more per hour and whether the agreement settled by Jim is legally enforceable.

does this meet the requirements?