Mech-Con Corporation contracted with P to perform certain work on the heating and air-conditioning systems at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Mech-Con, as principal, and Albert Bond and his wife, D, as sureties, executed a payment bond to cover labor and materials expended by persons working on the project. D asserted the defense of duress, contending that she was not liable because Albert 'physically threatened her and abused her to coerce her to sign a number of documents, including the payment bond, and would not answer her regarding their content.' D claimed that P could not enforce the surety agreement against her because, under Maryland law, a person whose consent to a contract is obtained by duress may assert that defense against the other contracting party, even though that party 'neither took part in the infliction of duress nor had any knowledge of it.' P's motion for summary judgment was opposed by D and remains pending. The federal district court, believing that 'resolution of this motion raises an unsettled issue of Maryland law,' has certified the question of: 'whether a party whose consent to entering a contract is coerced may assert the defense of duress against a party who neither knew of nor participated in the infliction of the coercive acts.'

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.