ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
CONTENTION 1: THE PRESENT CASE DEALS WITH UNDUE INFLUENCE
It is humbly submitted by the Defendant that the present case deals with a situation where
there is real and apparent authority of the Plaintiff vis-à-vis the Defendant that is, of an
employer over his employee and therefore the former has the ability to dominate the will of
the latter.
For every valid agreement, there must be consent from both the parties. Section 13 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1972 defines consent as the meeting of mind of the parties i.e consensus
ad idem (when two or more persons agree upon the same things in the same sense). Section
14 of the Contract Act, 1972 further states that consent is said to be free if the parties enter
into a contract with free will, that means with no pressure and not caused by certain factors,
one of which is undue influence.
Section 16 defines Undue Influence:
(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where 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 uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, 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, or where he stands in
a fiduciary relation to the other; or
(b) where 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.
(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a
contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence
adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not
induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will
of the other.
Memorial on behalf of the Defendent
The dominant position is not defined in the Indian Contract Act but Section 16(2) provides
certain conditions when a person is in a position to dominate the will of another. The relevant
case where a person is in a position to dominate the will of others, is as follows: There must
be a relation between the parties which is Real or apparent authority/relation in which one
party can be dominated by the other party.
Consent under pressure means when consent is obtained forcefully. In this manner, consent is
not lawful, so it had no binding effect.
All cases where there is an active trust and confidence between the parties and both parties
are not on equal footing. The principle of undue influence applies to all the cases where
influence is acquired and abused. It applies to all relations where domination can be exercised
by one party over another. i.e where exists a real or apparent authority or fiduciary
relationship. In the category of undue influence, the circumstances under which the contract
was made is taken in the account along with their relationships. The existence of a
dominating position along with its use is mandatory to invoke an action. Merely a dominant
position does not lead to undue influence. It arises only when this position is used for gaining
an undue advantage. Undue advantage means any kind of advantage which is not warranted
by circumstances in which the contract was entered.
The word undue means unnecessary, unwarranted, or more than required. Influence means
convincing the mind of a counterparty through changing his mind or changing his will, this
influence must be undue i.e it is not required. It is brought to the attention of this Hon’ble
Court that the Plaintiff, Aman tried to exert this influence on more than a couple of occasions
in an attempt to sway Rajiv into agreeing to sell the property in question. After his first offer
was rejected by Rajiv, Aman increased Rajiv’s salary by a staggering 20% which was highly
unreasonable when compared to salary hikes of other employees, which was a mere 5%.
After this salary hike, Aman again placed an offer to purchase the property in question, for
which Rajiv requested some time to think.
Memorial on behalf of the Defendent
The Plaintiff, Aman gave a rent free accommodation to Rajiv and his family near his place of
work. Within four months, Aman approached Rajiv and offered to sell the house if Rajiv was
willing to transfer his land to his son. Rajiv agreed but delayed the transfer citing family
reasons. After two years, when the Plaintiff asked Rajiv to proceed with the transfer, he
denied and hence there was the present dispute. It is pertinent to note that the various perks
offered by Aman to his employee, Rajiv cannot be reasonably explained as part of any
employee compensation package and were merely a ploy to get Rajiv into agreeing to sell his
land to his employer. This is further evident by the fact that Aman placed a total of three
offers, two of which did not interest Rajiv.
Memorial on behalf of the Defendent
PRAYER
In the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the Counsel for the Defendant humbly prays before the Hon’ble Court to kindly adjudge and
declare that:
1. THAT THE COURT HELDS THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES WAS A CASE OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Memorial on behalf of the Defendent
