What is the legal outcome for A if their entry was based on a coerced agreement with B?

In situations where A's entry onto B's property is predicated on a coerced agreement, the legal outcome typically hinges on the validity of that agreement. If the agreement was coerced, it lacks the essential elements of a valid contract, particularly the requirement of mutual assent that is freely given. This coerced nature means the agreement cannot be enforceable, impacting A's legal standing.

Given that A was not afforded a genuine choice but rather compelled to enter through coercion, the argument for A's liability for trespass becomes strong. Trespass is defined as the unlawful entering onto someone else's property without permission. Since the coerced agreement does not provide legitimate permission, A's entry is unauthorized, thereby qualifying as trespass.

In contrast, the other options do not align with the legal norms surrounding coerced agreements. For example, B cannot be bound by an agreement that was the result of coercion, as it lacks validity; thus, the integrity of the agreement is compromised. Additionally, A cannot be held to a license to stay on the land since the basis for that license is flawed due to the coercion. The court is likely to regard the agreement as void, meaning A cannot rely on it for legal protection regarding their presence on B's