Which of the following may NOT qualify as duress for confinement?

In the context of duress for confinement, the key element is the coercive force that leads a person to feel they have no choice but to act against their will. Duress typically involves threats or pressure that can overpower an individual's ability to make free decisions.

Offering a monetary incentive to stay does not fit the classical definition of duress. Instead, it suggests a voluntary exchange, where the plaintiff has the option to accept or decline the offer without any coercion. Such an offer implies consent rather than compulsion, which contrasts sharply with the premise of duress that necessitates pressure, threat, or force that eliminates or constrains the ability to choose freely.

In contrast, the other options — threatening harm to property, threatening to harm a family member, and applying undue pressure to agree — embody coercive actions that can instill fear or significant pressure, thereby constituting duress. These forms of intimidation can create a genuine sense of confinement or lack of free will, as they leverage existential threats or substantial pressure that compel an individual to act. In this context, those actions would likely support a claim of duress, highlighting why they differ fundamentally from the voluntary nature of a monetary incentive.