 Peter Westen and H. L. A. Hart argue that throffers are not always coercive , and , when they are , it is specifically the threat that makes them so . For a throffer to be coercive , they claim , the threat must meet three further conditions ; firstly , the person making the throffer " must be intentionally bringing the threat to bear on X in order that X do something , Z1 " , secondly , the person making the throffer must know that " X would not otherwise do or wish to be constrained to do " Z1 , and , thirdly , the threat part of the throffer must render " X 's option of doing Z1 more eligible in X 's eyes than it would otherwise be " . As such , for the authors , there is the possibility of non @-@ coercive throffers . The pair present three possible examples . Firstly , when the threat aspect of the throffer is a joke ; secondly , when the offer aspect is already so desirable to the subject that the threat does not affect their decision @-@ making ; or , thirdly , when the subject mistakenly believes the threat immaterial because of the attractiveness of the offer . Rhodes similarly concludes that if a throffer is coercive , it is because of the threatening aspect . For him , the question is " whether one regards the threat component of a throffer as both a necessary and sufficient condition of the performance of a behaviour " . He argues that if the offer without the threat would have been enough for the agent subject to the proposal to act , then the proposal is not coercive . However , if both offer and threat aspects of the throffer are motivating factors , then it is tricky to determine whether the agent subject to the proposal was coerced . He suggests that differentiating between " pure coercion " and " partial coercion " may help solve this problem , and that the question of coercion in these cases is one of degree . 
