The Madras Supreme Court has confirmed that the threat of suicide also amounts to coercion and that the aggrieved party has the right to terminate the contract. In this case, the husband threatened his wife and son with suicide if they did not execute a bill of sale in favour of his younger brother. They carried out the act, but then filed a lawsuit for coercion. Since the act of suicide is prohibited even under the ICC, the husband`s act was found unlawful and the consent obtained was obtained through coercion. This is a case of coercion in which the Court of Justice has considered whether coercion could be caused by a threat of suicide. In this case, a husband threatened to commit suicide, forcing his wife and son to sign a deed of release in favour of his brother with regard to certain properties they claimed for their property. It was decided that a threat of suicide amounted to coercion and that the act was questionable. In Ram Chandra v. Ganesh Chandra,[7] it was established that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the respondent to lease the coal mine. According to the agreement, the complainant made an advance payment to the respondent.
But the Privy Council and the decision of the Supreme Court of Calcutta have called into question the understanding of the law between the parties. The Appellant therefore refused to continue the contract and sued the Respondent for restitution. Following Cooper v Phibbs, supra, it was decided that the applicant was entitled to the reimbursement he had paid. If only one party makes a mistake in a contract, this is called a unilateral error. If the other party is not aware of the error, the applicability of the contract will not be affected. If a unilateral error is related to a fact, the contract will not be affected. If both parties make exactly the same mistake in a contract and that error is related to an important fact in the agreement, the contract becomes invalid. However, if the error is related to the legal consequences of the contract, the contract is still valid and binding.
Coercion is the force of forcing a person to enter into a contract. When intimidation or threats are used under pressure to obtain the Party`s approval, i.e. it is not free consent. If an agreement is reached and it is determined that the item is no longer available, it becomes impossible for the parties to fulfill their part of the obligation. This is considered a physical impossibility of performance, so that the contract becomes null and void. Actual consent may be expressed by words or deeds, or by silence or inaction, if the situation is such that silence or inaction is intended to give consent; It is not always necessary to inform the Contracting Party of the actual consent. A person who is not in the contract or who is a foreigner may also be coerced against him. IMPACT ON THE CONTRACT – Coercion can make the contract voidable.
This means that the contract is voidable at the choice of the party whose consent was not free. The injured party therefore decides to perform the contract or to declare it null and void. The Contracting Parties may agree on a point along the same lines. However, mere consent is not enough, consent must also be given voluntarily in order to establish an effective contract. In the case of fraud, it is up to the party claiming fraud to prove it. The party must prove the circumstances that may lead to the existence of fraud. The mere mention of fraud in the plea is not enough. A crucial point to consider is that if the party who is presumed to have been a victim of fraud has had the opportunity or the means to discover the truth with the usual care, the contract will not be declared null and void. Free consent under the Indian Treaties Act is defined in section 14. The article states that consent is considered free consent if it is not caused or influenced by: Consent exists when one person voluntarily recognizes another person`s proposal or wish. The definition of free consent under the Indian Contracts Act is consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or error. Article 13 states: « Two or more persons agree when they agree on the same thing in the same sense (consensus-ad-idem). » Free consent means the consent given to a person to perform an action according to his or her will.
EFFECT – If the consent is not free due to undue influence, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the aggravated party. And the burden of proof lies with the dominant party to prove the lack of influence. A key factor is that the Indian Penal Code is not always applicable to the place where consent was obtained. The phrase « to the detriment of a person, no matter » is an important part of the law because it means that coercion can be directed against the harm of anyone, not just the contracting party. Surprisingly, parties other than contracting parties may also resort to coercion. The Indian Contract Act of 1872 regulates contracts in India. The law states that no contract can be concluded unless both parties are fully committed and willing to make the contract legally enforceable. As a result, the concept of free consent becomes extremely important.
Section 12 (1) of the Indian Contracts Act expressly provides that a contract must have the free consent of both parties having jurisdiction to be legally enforceable and binding. In this case, an elderly and uneducated woman gave a high financial advantage to her supervisor without any meaningful consideration, and it was concluded that undue influence had been exercised. The burden of proof was on the Managing Director to prove that it was a bona fide transaction and that no undue influence had been exercised. Unilateral error: If a fact is the subject of a misunderstanding for one of the contracting parties, the agreement is valid. Only if the party is wrong about the parties to the agreement or the nature of the transaction does the agreement become null and void. A key factor is that the Indian Penal Code is not always applicable to the place where consent was obtained. A very important part of the law is the phrase « to the detriment of any person », which means that coercion can be directed against the prejudice of a person and not only against the contracting party. It is interesting to note that in addition to the contracting parties, the parties may also exercise coercion. Even a third party to the contract can provoke coercion to obtain consent, as seen in Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti (1889),[2] where a widow was subjected to coercion because she was forced to adopt a boy and was not allowed to remove her husband`s body until the adoption was carried out. In contract law in India, the meaning of consent is given in Article 13, which states that « it is when two or more persons agree on the same thing and in the same sense ». So both people must also agree on the same thing in the same sense.
Mere consent is not sufficient for a contract to be enforceable. The consent given must be free and voluntary. If the agreement is reached by force, the probability that the contract will be invalid is lower. Apparent consent occurs when a reasonable person understands a person`s actions or words, silence or inaction as being intended to give consent. However, a sincere but irrational belief that the other person is accepting a contract does not constitute obvious consent. If two parties want to reach an agreement, they can use a contract that sets out the rights and obligations of all parties. There are several important elements in a contract, including consent. Basically, consent is the parties` understanding of the contract. If both parties have reached an agreement on something that does not exist, the contract is considered null and void. Chikkam Ammiraju v. Chickam Seshamma[2]In this case, by threatening suicide, the husband induced his wife and son to sign a deed of release in favour of his brother for certain property claimed by the wife and son as their own.
