Abstract
Economic duress is subject to strong contradictions in Law. The concept is prevalent in contractual relations and in pre-contractual relations. However, the concept of economic duress has never been defined and there is no specific regime for this term. Similarly, the concept is addressed indirectly by many regimes, but these regimes are in practice rarely used and when applied, they can be quite disappointing. As a result, economic duress is a recurring issue in law and remains to this day, a puzzler for the legal community. Despite the legislative inflation, the methods to address economic duress remains a failure. The aim of this study is to understand and explain the reasons for this failure in order to make the necessary adjustments for a consistent and effective tackling of economic duress cases. The cross-cutting analysis of the various regimes indirectly affected by these cases, highlights the peculiarities and the lack of consistency of the current approach and in particular the negative impact of the distinctive identity of special rights with regards to addressing economic duress.The lessons learned from this analysis indicate a need for a shared framework for economic duress and call for a broadening of the response to these cases.