Can Ben enforce his contract with Tom if it was based on a threat of arson?

In this scenario, Ben cannot enforce his contract with Tom due to the fundamental principle that contracts must be based on lawful considerations. When a contract is created under duress or illegal activity, such as a threat of arson, it becomes unenforceable in a court of law. This is because the law does not allow individuals to benefit from illegal acts or coercion. Contracts formed by means of unlawful threats violate public policy and legal standards, rendering any obligations arising from such agreements void.

The sense of illegality is critical here; even if both parties may have entered into the contract, the nature of the coercion – a threat of committing a crime, in this case, arson – compromises the validity and legitimacy of the agreement. As a result, enforcing such a contract would not only contradict legal principles but could also imply an endorsement of the threatening behavior, which is unacceptable in legal and ethical terms.

While other options touch on elements like feelings of pressure or the nature of negotiations, they do not address the core issue of legality that renders the contract non-enforceable. The emphasis lies in the fact that any contract related to illegal acts like arson cannot stand up in a legal context.