Skip to main content

UNDUE INFLUENCE under Indian Contract Act

 UNDUE INFLUENCE (Sec.16)


Definition as per S.16 (1): "A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where,

(i) the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a

position to dominate the will of the other and

(ii) uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

Sec. 16(2) a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another: -

(a)   where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, e.g., the relationship

between master and servant, police officer and accused; or

(b) Where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other, e.g., father and son, doctor and

patient, trustee and beneficiary etc.

(c) When he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or

permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

Illustrations

(a)   A, a man enfeebled by desease or age, is induced, by B’s influence over him as his

medical attendant, to agree to pay B an unreasonable sum for his profession services. B

employs undue influence.

(b)   A being in debt to B, the money-lender of his village, contracts a fresh loan on terms

which appear to be unconscionable. It lies on B to prove that the contract was not induced by

indue influence.

Presumption of undue influence

Undue influence is presumed to exist under the circumstances mentioned above in (a), (b)

and (c).

No presumption of undue influence in following cases

(i) Husband and wife

(ii) Mother and daughter

(iii) Grandson and Grandfather

(iv) Landlord and tenant

(v) Creditor and Debtor

In above case undue influences have to be proved.

Effect of Undue Influence (Sec.19-A)

A contract vitiated by undue influence is voidable at the option of weaker party. The court

can set aside such contract-

(i)    Either wholly: or


(ii)    Where the weaker party has enjoyed some benefit under the terms of the contract, then

upon just and equitable terms

Burden of proof

In cases where there is a presumption of undue influence the burden of proving that the

person who was in a position to dominate the will of another did not use his position to obtain

an unfair advantage, will lie upon the person who was in a position of dominate the will of

another [Sec. 16(3)]. He can rebut and oppose the presumption by arguing

(i) That full disclosure of fact was made

(ii) That the price was adequate

(iii) consent was free

Comments

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

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

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