Court Opinion

ID: 9670183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:16:26.928338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.932136
License: Public Domain

MOSER, P.J.
(concurring). I concur with reversing the trial court and use of the doctrine of economic duress.1 I do not concur in the majority adoption of economic duress as an intentional tort. I believe the doctrine of economic duress is a quasi-contractual cause of action designed to prevent unjust enrichment.2 I would limit recovery to the overpayment, even though the means by which payment was induced are assumed to be improper. I am of the opinion that my view of the doctrine of economic duress comports with previous decisions of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.3

 Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Railroad. Commission, 183, Wis. 47, 56, 197 N.W. 352, 355 (1924); Mendelson v. Blatz Brewing Co., 9 Wis.2d 487, 494, 101 N.W.2d 805, 809 (1960).

 E.g., Dawson, Economic Duress — An Essay in Perspective, 45 Mich. L. Rev. 253, 282-83 (1947).

 Guetzkow Brothers Co. v. Breese, 96 Wis. 591, 72 N.W. 45 (1897).