File Name: duress and undue influence .zip
Contract Law pp Cite as. The law of contract has always placed limits upon the exercise of economic power by contracting parties see Reiter,
Duress and undue influence essentially means that a person or party has been forced into a contract. The contract cannot be considered to be a valid agreement under these circumstances. Under common law, there are two doctrines to consider: duress and undue influence.
In jurisprudence , undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. This inequity in power between the parties can vitiate one party's consent as they are unable to freely exercise their independent will. Where it is established that a plaintiff was induced to enter into a contract or transaction by the undue influence of the defendant, the contract may be rendered voidable.
If undue influence is proved in a contract, the innocent party is entitled to set aside the contract against the defendant, and the remedy is rescission. In Australia, the leading case on undue influence is Johnson v Buttress ,  in which the approach to 'actual' and 'presumed' undue influence was at issue.
In the first subgroup, the relationship falls in a class of relationships that as a matter of law will raise a presumption of undue influence. Such classes include:. In such cases, the burden of proof lies on the first of said parties e. This requires the dominant party to establish that the second party "knew and understood what he or she was doing, and that he or she was acting independently of the influence of the dominant party".
The second subgroup covers relationships that do not fall into the first subgroup, but on the facts of case, there was an relationship between the parties that led to undue influence.
The test is one of whether "one party occupies or assumes towards another a position naturally involving an ascendancy or influence over that other, or a dependence or trust on his part".
An innocent party may also seek to have a contract set aside for actual undue influence, where there is no presumption of undue influence, but there is evidence that the power was unbalanced at the time of the signing of the contract. There was evidential proof that there was a long history of brutal domestic violence inflicted by the husband on the wife, whereby he ended up murdering her.
There was a presumption that the wife only transferred her interest to the husband because of undue influence and evidence proved that the transfer resulted from actual undue influence. It was because of the history of violence that resulted in the judge setting aside the transfer. A contrasting case is Lee v Chai , in which Mr Lee purchased an apartment and a Porsche for Ms Chai, with whom he was having an affair. It was held that Mr Lee and Ms Chai were not in a relationship of influence that would attract the operation of the equitable doctrine.
Mr Lee was a well-educated man with substantial experience in business affairs, while Ms Chai had a 'less forceful personality' and less business experience. This case highlights an approach taken in Australia, which is to focus on the impaired consent of the plaintiff. In Garcia v National Australia Bank ,  the High Court of Australia approved the principle in Yerkey v Jones ,  by distinguishing between cases of actual undue influence and situations where the transaction is set aside because the guarantor does not understand the nature of the transaction.
That is, someone in possession of full mental capacity is not likely to be swayed by undue influence, manipulation, or coercion. In litigation most jurisdictions place the burden of proving undue influence on the party challenging the will.
Undue influence can be very difficult to prove, and the mere appearance of undue influence is inadequate to challenge the validity of a will. In probate law , undue influence is generally defined as a testator 's loss of free agency regarding property disposition through contemporaneous psychological domination by an advisor, resulting in an excessive benefit to the advisor.
It is important to note that "undue influence" is an issue only when the advisor is benefiting, not when advisor is getting a benefit for someone else;  [ failed verification ] in that case it would be considered fraud. In Germany, to avoid undue influence it is illegal for a testator who is or has been a resident of a nursing home to bequeath any property to any employee of the nursing home. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article has multiple issues.
Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. Learn how and when to remove these template messages. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate.
May Learn how and when to remove this template message. Main article: Undue influence in English law. Modern Law Review. Core's Administrators , S. Grossman Law Firm. Going Legal Limited. Accessed May 15, Scalise Jr. Paterson, J. Thomson Reuters Professional Australia Limited. Categories : Contract law Wills and trusts Equitable defenses Legal doctrines and principles Influence social and political. Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from July All articles needing additional references Articles with limited geographic scope from May Articles with multiple maintenance issues All articles with failed verification Articles with failed verification from June Namespaces Article Talk.
Views Read Edit View history. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Download as PDF Printable version. Part of the common law series. Offer and acceptance Posting rule Mirror image rule Invitation to treat Firm offer Consideration Implication-in-fact Collateral contract. Parol evidence rule Contract of adhesion Integration clause Contra proferentem. Privity of contract Assignment Delegation Novation Third-party beneficiary.
Specific performance Liquidated damages Penal damages Rescission. Promissory estoppel Quantum meruit Unjust enrichment. Conflict of laws Commercial law. Tort law Property law Wills , trusts , and estates Criminal law Evidence.
Bona fide purchaser Clean hands.
The reasoning behind duress and undue influence is to protect the freedom of contracts, which has been achieved by the courts invalidating a contract that has been formed by any coercion. A person who enters into a contract is often under some sort of pressure to do so. Duress concerns consent and whether it has been vitiated thus leading to the contract becoming voidable. If a contract is voidable you are only entitled to rescission. Dimskal Shipping Co SA v ITWF: The threat to breach a contract must be a significant cause to induce the victim of duress to enter into a new contract Illustrates the causative nature — there must be a link. Serious threat or serious harm to another person The threat must be a reason for entering into the contract There is little guidance regarding how serious the threat must be.
Both Coercion and undue influence create flaw in consent and make contract voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. Presumed undue influence age, illness or distress. Because coercion is not a benign accusation, the concept is in need of clarification and should be used carefully. The primary difference between coercion and undue influence is that coercion involves physical and psychological pressure while undue influence involves mental pressure. Under Section 14 the Indian Contract Act, states that a consent is free when it is not caused by coercion. Coercion involves doing or threatening to do an illegal act. The difference between duress and undue influence describes a situation where one party is forced through coercion of violence, while another is forced through the unethical actions of another party into a contract or agreement.
N. Duress & Undue imstea.org Grace Kala. Look at the case of Friederberg-Seeley v. Klass Traditionally, the threat had to be unlawful to constitute duress.
When a person is forced to do something against his or her will, that person is said to have been the victim of duress A threat of improper action to induce a person to make a contract. There are two types of duress: physical duress and duress by improper threat. A contract induced by physical violence is void. If a person is forced into entering a contract on threat of physical bodily harm, he or she is the victim of physical duress The threat of physical harm that wrongfully induces a party to contract.
The difference between duress and undue influence describes a situation where one party is forced through coercion of violence, while another is forced through the unethical actions of another party into a contract or agreement. All of these factors come into play with undue influence. Contract law is primarily concerned with the enforcement of promises and is regulated largely by the common law.
Человек улыбнулся: охота становилась интересной. Беккер здесь… Я чувствую, что. Он двигался методично, обходя один ряд за другим. Наверху лениво раскачивалась курильница, описывая широкую дугу. Прекрасное место для смерти, - подумал Халохот. - Надеюсь, удача не оставит. Беккер опустился на колени на холодный каменный пол и низко наклонил голову.
Нет, решила .
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *