A bank's requirement that borrowers execute additional security documents as a condition of further financial accommodation does not constitute unconscionable conduct or economic duress, even where the borrower's business is in a perilous financial state, provided the borrower understands the nature and effect of the documents and has received independent legal and financial advice. Financial difficulties of the weaker party, while relevant, are not sufficient alone to establish unconscionable conduct — something more is required, such as terms not reasonably necessary for the protection of the stronger party's legitimate interests. Claims of 'illegitimate pressure' involving lawful conduct should be determined under equitable doctrines of unconscionability and undue influence, not economic duress.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 77 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 77 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.