In Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 20 N.J. 359, 365, 120 A.2d 11 (1956), the Court defined duress as "that degree of constraint or danger, either actually inflicted or threatened and impending, sufficient in severity or in apprehension to overcome the mind or will of a person of ordinary firmness, . . . such as in fact works control of the will." However, "in the modern view," the Court continued, "moral compulsion or psychological pressure may constitute duress if, thereby, the subject of the pressure is overborne and he is deprived of the exercise of his free will." Id. at 366, 120 A.2d 11. Duress may take the form of moral compulsion or psychological pressure. Yet, even moral compulsion or psychological pressure are not wrongful unless they are "'so oppressive under given circumstances as to constrain one to do what his free will would refuse.'" Shanley & Fisher, P.C. v. Sisselman, 215 N.J. Super. 200, 213, 521 A.2d 872 (App.Div.1987) (citing Rubenstein, supra, 20 N.J. at 367, 120 A.2d 11).