"I am demanding to have my real estate contract from five years ago terminated. I only signed it because my wife said she loved the house, and she threatened to leave me if we didn't buy it."
Duress does negate a contract and your example is silly.
A ridiculous analogy
There is another case in which the conviction was dismissed because the prosecution failed to disclose evidence in favor of the defendant.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-stevens-idUSBRE84N1HK20120524
[captain_dave #6] He should not be held in contempt for perjury because his plea was made under duress. He was mentally tortured, financially ruined, and threats were made against his son.- - - - - - - - - -
[Alberta's Child #19] If that's the standard you hold, then I'd say you can abrogate just about any contract that has been signed by any party in the history of mankind.
"I am demanding to have my real estate contract from five years ago terminated. I only signed it because my wife said she loved the house, and she threatened to leave me if we didn't buy it."
If you don't plead guilty, we will charge your son and put him in jail.
Arthur Linton Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, One Volume Edition, West Publishing, 1952,
§ 146, Voidable or Unforceable Promises as a Consideration
"Another type of exception is a promise voidable for fraud, duress, or illegality."
§ 228. Contracts Voidable for Fraud, Duress, or Mistake.
"An executory promise that has been induced by fraud or duress, or in certain kinds of cases by mistake, are unenforceable against the promisor."
Kaplan v. Kaplan, 25 Ill. 2d 181 (1962)
Duress has been defined as a condition where one is induced by a wrongful act or threat of another to make a contract under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of his free will, and it may be conceded that a contract executed under duress is voidable. (Shlensky v. Shlensky, 369 Ill. 179; 12 I.L.P., Contracts, sec. 126; Restatement *186 of Contracts, § 492.) Acts or threats cannot constitute duress unless they are wrongful; however, the rule is not limited to acts that are criminal, tortious or in violation of a contractual duty, but extends to acts that are wrongful in a moral sense. (Restatement of Contracts, § 492, Comment g.) At common law duress meant only duress of the person, that is a threat to life, limb or liberty, and the threat must have been of a nature as to create such fear as would impel a person of ordinary courage to yield to it. (Illinois Merchants Trust Co. v. Harvey, 335 Ill. 284; 17A Am. Jur., Duress and Undue Influence, sec. 10.) Under modern views and developments, however, duress is no longer confined to situations involving threats of personal injury or imprisonment, and the standard of whether a man of ordinary courage would yield to the threat has been supplanted by a test which inquires whether the threat has left the individual bereft of the quality of mind essential to the making of a contract. (Decker v. Decker, 324 Ill. 457; Slade v. Slade, 310 Ill. App. 77; 17A Am. Jur., Duress and Undue Influence, sec. II.) Any wrongful threat which actually puts the victim in such fear as to act against his will constitutes duress and, according to some authorities, a threat of personal or family disgrace may be of such gravity as to deprive the person threatened of the mental capacity necessary to execute a valid contract. (Tallmadge v. Robinson, 158 Ohio St. 333, 109 N.E.2d 496; Fox v. Piercey, 119 Utah 367, 227 P.2d 763; Coleman v. Crescent Wire Cable Co. 350 Mo. 781, 168 S.W.2d 1060.) Generally, as stated in 17A Am. Jur., Duress and Undue Influence, sec. II, p. 573, "the threat must be of such nature and made under such circumstances as to constitute a reasonable and adequate cause to control the will of the threatened person, and must have that effect, and the act sought to be avoided must be performed by the person while in that condition * * *."