business law
QUESTION 3
Based on the case given Richard entered only into a donation agreement in terms of which he will provide a free daily lunch to members of the political party, after freightened by Jonathan’s threat. Therefore this contract is not with Richard’s consent.
According to the case of situation, there was Coercion and Undue Influence by the political party and Jonathan.
“Coercion” is the committing, or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Panel Code, or the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
The Privy Council in Kanhaya Lal v National Bank of India, Ltd explained that the definition of “Coercion” in Section 15 above is limited to an unlawful act done ‘with the intention of causing the person to enter into an agreement’. This means that the definition of Coercion under section 15 applies solely to the consideration whether there has been free consent to an agreement so as to render it a contract under section 10 of the Contracts Act 1950.
Similar to this, in Kesarmal s/o Letchman Das v Valliapa Chettiar it was held that a transfer executed under the orders of the Sultan, issued in the ominous presence of two Japanese Officers during Japanese Occupation of Malaya, was invalid. The court held that consent was not freely given and the agreement was voidable of the will or option of the party whose consent was so caused.
In Richard’s case, the same consequences has taken place, where by a prominent member of the political party (Jonathan) threatened to persuade all Richard’s existing customers to award function tenders to Jonathan’s brother. This was a business threat to Richard, and due to fear of losing his business and model, Richard could have entered the agreement but not with his consent.
Besides that, this case is also said to be induced by ‘undue influence’ (according to section 16 (1), where the relations
Based on the case given Richard entered only into a donation agreement in terms of which he will provide a free daily lunch to members of the political party, after freightened by Jonathan’s threat. Therefore this contract is not with Richard’s consent.
According to the case of situation, there was Coercion and Undue Influence by the political party and Jonathan.
“Coercion” is the committing, or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Panel Code, or the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
The Privy Council in Kanhaya Lal v National Bank of India, Ltd explained that the definition of “Coercion” in Section 15 above is limited to an unlawful act done ‘with the intention of causing the person to enter into an agreement’. This means that the definition of Coercion under section 15 applies solely to the consideration whether there has been free consent to an agreement so as to render it a contract under section 10 of the Contracts Act 1950.
Similar to this, in Kesarmal s/o Letchman Das v Valliapa Chettiar it was held that a transfer executed under the orders of the Sultan, issued in the ominous presence of two Japanese Officers during Japanese Occupation of Malaya, was invalid. The court held that consent was not freely given and the agreement was voidable of the will or option of the party whose consent was so caused.
In Richard’s case, the same consequences has taken place, where by a prominent member of the political party (Jonathan) threatened to persuade all Richard’s existing customers to award function tenders to Jonathan’s brother. This was a business threat to Richard, and due to fear of losing his business and model, Richard could have entered the agreement but not with his consent.
Besides that, this case is also said to be induced by ‘undue influence’ (according to section 16 (1), where the relations