In KIRAN BALA v. BHAIRE PRASAD SRIVASTAVA (1982), the appellant`s first marriage was annulled on the grounds that she was not of sound mind at the time of the marriage. She was married to the accused for the second time and kept secret the reason for the annulment of the first marriage of the groom and his parents. The court ruled that the groom`s consent had been obtained by fraud and was overturned by a decree under the Hindu Marriage Act. If the consent of a party is not free, the contract is void. If a contract is concluded without the free consent of another party, the party whose consent has not been obtained may seek redress under the following conditions: Article 13 of the ICA defines consent as “if two parties have concluded the contract, they should agree on the same thing in the same way”, there should be a meeting of minds between the two parties. Under Article 16(2), a person is considered to have a dominant position if: – The burden of proof lies with the party whose consent was obtained by misrepresentation and is voidable at the discretion of the injured party, although he cannot sue the other party for damages. Article 22 provides that if a person has made an error of fact, the contract is neither void nor voidable and remains a valid contract, unless the error of fact relates to the subject matter of the contract or the identity of the person with whom the contract was concluded. c. If the contractual partner innocently causes a defect in the subject matter of the contract. It is also said that in both situations, a person is in a stronger position and is not at eye level. Under Article 16(3), the burden of proof is on the person in a dominant position. For example, A, who is an old man, is asked by B to pay him an unreasonable amount for his professional service, it is up to B to prove that the contract is acted intentionally without using undue influence.

Dragon:34 Termination has the effect of “reversing a contract or reversing it from the beginning, not just its termination.” The withdrawal therefore justifies the obligation to return the object of the contract. It can only be carried out if the person requesting the resignation can return everything he is obliged to do. It is defined in section 16 of the Act. Consent is said to be induced by undue influence when the person with whom an agreement is entered into is related and in a dominant position, meaning that he or she has formal or informal authority over the person and uses such a position to enter into an agreement. And under subsection 16(2), if a person whose mental performance is impaired because of age or illness. Then undue influence can be detected in both situations. Under the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, contracts performed because of coercion, undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation are a questionable contract because the parties have the opportunity to perform or not perform the contract. It is illegal to enter into a contract without the consent of both parties in the same sense. (2) He is a party to a contract with a person whose mental capacity is permanently or temporarily impaired due to age, illness or mental or physical stress. Illustration – Party A uses criminal intimidation as a means of reaching an agreement with B on the high seas while aboard an English ship. Later, A B filed a lawsuit for breach of contract in Mumbai. Although this Act is not a criminal offence under English law and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was not in force at the time the Law took place, it is said that A applied coercion.

1) Whether the contract is something that a person who has a just mind will conclude or not. For example, if it later turns out that one of the parties was unable to enter into a legally enforceable contract when the original was approved, that party may choose to ratify the contract if it is deemed legally capable. Therefore, any influence that excludes free and conscious judgment is called undue influence. Section 21 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is based on the maxim – Ignorantia Juris non exusant, which means that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Therefore, it provides that a contract is not voidable because it was caused by an error under a law in force in India. Free consent refers to an agreement when both parties knowingly and voluntarily enter into a contract of their own free will. . In addition, the contract must be free from errors or misrepresentations on the part of both parties.

If consent is obtained by any of these means, the contract will be considered void and unenforceable by law. However, in an explanatory part of the given section, it is clearly stated that if the person has no obligation to speak, this does not constitute fraud, unless a clause is mentioned in a contract according to which silence is equated with speech. For example, A auctions to B, a horse that A knows is unhealthy. A says nothing about the horse`s insensitivity to B. This is not a scam. Conclusion Approval involves a meeting of the mind. If there is no agreement and there is no opinion meeting. If consent is obtained unnoticed, consent under some influence, so free consent is an essential part of the contract.

In our daily lives, we enter into a contract knowingly or unconsciously. We enter into performance agreements or commitments in the near future or after a specified period of time. In India, the treaty is governed by the Indian Contract Act of 1872, which defines the conditions under which a contract must be concluded. Under section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, purpose and consideration are given when a person is able to enter into or enter into a contract with others. The conduct of the representation of fraud must be intentionally dishonest. Actively obscuring the facts with knowledge or belief in the fact is also a fraud. There are some exceptions to the general rule that silence does not amount to representation and not fraud, are insurance contracts, family regulation, contracts for the allocation of shares in companies, parents and children, guardians and wards, which are required disclosure and good faith. As mentioned above, free consent is an essential element for a valid contract.

Here, as under § 13, consent means when two or more persons agree on the same thing in the same sense. According to Article 14, free consent is consent that is not caused by: the contract is not valid if there is no free or genuine consent, as specified in English law. Consent is not considered gratuitous if it was caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and error. The contract becomes voidable if there is an error in the cause or triggering cause. Error is a corrupting factor, it is by an error of consensus and prevents the meeting of the mind necessary for the conclusion of a contract, it makes a contract invalid. Thus, the contract is void in case of error, but in other cases such as coercion, undue influence, fraud and false declaration, the contract is only questionable in accordance with § 19, 19A, consent was not free to choose the party. A questionable contract is a formal agreement between two parties that can be declared unenforceable for a number of legal reasons. The reasons that can make a contract questionable are as follows: Also, if the consent is not free and is caused accidentally, is the agreement? According to section 14 of the Indian Contracts Act 1857, free consent is defined as “consent shall be considered free if it is not caused by coercion, influence, fraud, misrepresentation and error”.

In the previous article on free consent, we already covered the first four factors. (3) The third type is when one party acts innocently and causes the other party to make errors concerning the subject matter of the contract. A void contract is a formal agreement that is effectively illegitimate and unenforceable from the moment it is created. A void contract is different from a voidable contract, although both may actually be terminated for similar reasons. .