When Consent Of An Agreement Is Obtained By Undue Influence The Agreement Is A

If the applicant intends to bring an action for termination of a contract entered into for ineligibility of influence, two issues must be considered. The Act was declared in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The law states that in order for an applicant to prove that he or she was under inappropriate influence, two things must be established In cases where there is active trust between the parties and where the two parties are not equal. The principle of unjustified influence applies to all cases where influence is acquired and abused, where trust is betrayed. It applies to all relationships in which one party may exercise supremacy over another, i.e. where there is a real or apparent authority (chief and employee) or fiduciary relationships such as parent and child, physician and patient, etc. In the case of contracts, an error can work in two ways. First, it can nullify the agreement of the parties as a whole and, second, mislead the parties about the purpose of the contract. Cases in which the consent of the parties is denied fall under Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act defines inappropriate influence. If a party`s consent is due to inappropriate influence, it is not in the choice of the party whose approval has been obtained. Section 16 is as follows. There can be no comprehensive list of facts that are essential to the treaty and that are not essential to the treaty.

The importance of the facts depends on the nature of the contract, which is in any case different. Overall, the courts have established some essential facts for each agreement. They`re next. Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 states that coercion is committed or threatened to commit, any act is prohibited by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or unlawful detention or threat to hold property to the prejudice of a person, regardless, with the intention of forcing a person to enter into an agreement. “A” sold his gold ring for 200 Rs. to his teacher “B” after being offered by his teacher good grades. Here, A`s permission is not released, he was influenced by his teacher. For example, “A” dictate a sum of money to his son `B` at his minority age, and uses his parental influence on his son to sign a higher commitment for the advance.

In this case, “A” uses an inappropriate influence, because the father-son relationship is a fiduciary relationship and there is a natural trust between which “A” is abused by having his son sign a bond. “A party whose consent was caused by fraud and misrepresentation may, if deemed necessary, insist that the contract be executed and put into a situation if the representation is accurate.” It is not sufficient for the applicant to indicate the possibility of undue influence that could have been exerted by the dominant party. It must be certain that a person used his position to influence the complainant. A possibility of the same is not sufficient for the complainant to avoid a contract. A unilateral error occurs when a single contracting party commits an error. The contract is not concluded in such a case. Section 22 of the Act states that the contract will not be invalid simply because a party made the error. Therefore, if only one party has made an error, the contract remains a valid contract. The effect of coercion is to cancel the contract.

This means that it will cancel the party whose agreement was not free. The victim will therefore decide whether to impose the contract or terminate it. Hardss occurs when there is a physical coercion or direct recourse to violence to the person or there is a threat to a person`s life.