What logical problem would there be in this story?

Question

Robinson was employed as an assistant manager in Gallagher Drug Company Store. He was accused of theft and embezzlement, which he admitted to, and was fired. The following day, at company headhunters, he signed a contract promising to repay the company $2,000. Robinson made payment totaling $741, and then stopped. Gallagher sued for the balance. Robinson’s defense was that he had singed the agreement under duress. What logical problem would there be in Robinson’s arguing that he become aware of the duress after he attended a support group for unemployed managers?

Answer 1

If he signed the agreement and it was a legal and binding agreement, then where is the duress.  Was a gun held to his head while he signed it?  If there was no gun held to his head then there really isn't any duress at all.  

He after all committed a crime, which by the way was a felony.  The company fired him from his job.  The company opted to give him a chance to re pay the company for what was stolen/embezzled from them.   They did this rather than have him prosecuted for what he did to them.

He should have just made restitution for what he did rather than think that they made him sign some thing under duress.  Since it wasn't duress at all, he made the choice to take their offer of re payment and not end up getting a prison term for what he did.  He should have been grateful to them for not prosecuting him.  They allowed him an opportunity to just have to re pay what was stolen.  That isn't duress at all, that was an opportunity to get off the hook.

Answer 2

The most logical problem I see with this story is that the agreement Robinson signed would clearly state that he was to pay $2,000 restitution in order to avoid legal prosecution.

Even if Robinson could successfully argue he was under duress and was forced to sign the promissory note, the drug company can and will have a clear cut case of embezzlement or theft in office.

Upon conviction of these charges, Robinson would have a felony conviction on his record PLUS be forced to pay restitution for the remaining balance.

If logic were to be used in this scenario, Robinson would realize that he was going to pay back the $2000 regardless and would be far better off not having a felony conviction to haunt him for the rest of his life.

I hope this helps and you can find it useful

Answer 3

This,

"Robinson’s defense was that he had singed the agreement under duress"

Did he sing it?

Answer 4

First of all this was a felony, I have no idea why the company didn't press charges. I would assume he has information that if released to the right people would be damaging to the drug store. When signing the agreement I would assume they told him pay back the money and we won't press charges. Assuming he was inocent and was under duress when signing the agreement in a court that may be hard to prove. A very simple thing to always remember is never talk to the police, never admitt guilt no matter what evidence they claim to have. The company can and will lie about the evidence they have in order to get a confession. If they had sound evidence most generally they will call the police and let them handle the case. Most of the time when the company uses the tactic we know what you did be honest with us and it will help you. they do not have enough evidence and are fishing. Most people take this bait and end up in trouble even if you are guilty never admit to anything, never talk to the police. If they are intent on making an arrest you will not talk them out of it and by talking you will more than likely give them evidence they can and will use against you. Always plead the 5th. Even if guilty and they have you on camera most of the time do to the overload on the court system and the overcrowding in jails the state will let you plea to a lesser offense.