When A uses duress to obtain a written license from B, what is the outcome of A's entry onto B's land?

When A uses duress to obtain a written license from B, A's entry onto B's land is considered trespass. This is because duress undermines the voluntariness of B's consent; the written license obtained under duress does not reflect a true agreement freely made by B. The essence of consent as a legitimate defense to a trespass claim lies in its voluntary nature. If consent is obtained through coercion or threats, it cannot be deemed valid. Therefore, despite the existence of a written license, A's entry lacks lawful authority and is classified as trespass.

The notion of implied consent through duress does not hold because it assumes a genuine and voluntary agreement to grant permission, which is fundamentally absent when consent is coerced. Additionally, the role of B's custodian in permitting A's entry does not apply in this scenario, as duress negates the legal authority to provide consent that is binding. Thus, the presence of duress leads to the conclusion that A's entry is unlawful, affirming that it constitutes trespass.