Skip to main content

Undue Influence

                        UNDUE INFLUENCE

INTRODUCTION

When one party is in a position to dominate the will of the other and actually misuses the power, then it is a case of undue influence. Thus, the contract becomes voidable as mentioned under Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This means the unfair use of one’s superior position to obtain the consent of a person who is in a weak position.


ESSENTIALS FOR BEING AN UNDUE INFLUENCE

  • When one person is in a position to dominate the will of the other person in a contract.

  • When he/she  misuses his position

  • When he/she obtains an unfair advantage.

 

For instance, A police officer ‘A’ bought a property worth Rs 1 crore for Rs 5 Lakh from Roman, an accused under his custody. Later this contract was cancelled and it was held that the contract was voidable because there was a mental pressure on Roman.

For a person to be in an undue influence, the most important thing is that what type of a relationship the parties have between them. There are generally three types of relationship/authority:-

  • Real authority – An example of a real authority is that of a father and a son.

  •  Apparent authority – An example of an apparent authority is of an employer and an employee.

  •  Fiduciary relationship – It is a relationship based on trusts. Suppose that of an advocate and a client.

Only dominating position of a person is not necessary there should also be the misuse of power of this position for taking advantage, then only will it be called an undue influence.


BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof generally lies onto the party bringing a claim to the court.

         However, the burden can be shifted to the defendant in an undue influence case if the plaintiff can demonstrate that a confidential relationship exists between testator and the defendant.

 For example, ‘A’, the plaintiff was indebted to ‘B’ the defendant. B had given ‘A’, a loan. When A showed that B was at a dominating position, the burden of proof was on B now. This means that now B has to prove to the court that he had not exerted undue influence on A.

PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE

 This means in some case the court presumes that there must have been an undue influence. The court presumes when-

  • One of the parties to a contract is in a position to dominate the will of another and the contract is prime facie unconscionable (that is unfair), the court presumes the existence of undue influence in such cases.

  • One of the parties to a contract is a pardanashin woman( a woman who are generally in cove like burkha, gunghat. These women are generally not allowed to socialise.), the contract is presumed to be induced by undue influence, and the burden of proof is shifted to another party. Thus, he/she has to show in the court that the women was explained clearly the facts in the document of the transaction. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more