Difference between Coercion and undue Influence
Coercion and undue Influence – We have learnt that in case of both coercion and undue influence the consent is not free and the contract is voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. However, there are some basic points of different between the two. These may be summarized as follows:
- Relationship: In case of coercion, relationship between the parties to the contract is not necessary, whereas in case of undue influence some sort of relationship generally exist between the two parties, for example, parents and son, doctor and patient, publisher and author, teacher and student, etc.
- Threat : Under coercion, the consent of the aggrieved party is obtained under the threat of an act which amounts to an offence and is forbidden by the Indian penal code. On the other hand, in undue influence, the consent of the aggrieved party is obtain by the dominating party by taking unfair advantage of his position over the other. (Coercion and undue Influence)
- Type of force: Coercion involves use of physical pressure or violent force. But undue influence is a kind of mental pressure and something known as ‘mental coercion’. Its basis is the existent relationship between the two parties.
- Role of third Party: In case of coercion, the threat or pressure may come from a third party who is stranger to the contract. Moreover, it may involve indirect threat to the aggrieved party by damaging the property of a person in whom he (the aggrieved party) has personal interest. While on the other hand, the undue influence must be exercised by or against a person who except the dominating party to the contract. No stranger is involves In creating mental pressure, except the dominating party himself. Such pressure is directly created only on the weaker party himself.