It entails use of physical force or threat, to cause consent in a contract. 3. Relationships are not implied. 4. Onus to prove that coercion was used to obtain consent lies on the partly who is complaining or the aggrieved party who is entitled to set aside the contract.
5. If the aggrieved party exercises the option to rescind the contract, it must restore benefits to the other party under section 64. 6. Coercion is criminal in nature. 7. Third party or stranger to contract may use coercion or be the target of coercion for making the contract voidable.
1. Undue influence is using relationships to dominate the will of other party to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. 2. It is moral coercion. Moral and mental pressure is applied on other party to cause consent for obtaining unreasonable advantages. 3. Relationship between the parties is substance to the use of dominant position for forcing consent 4. In cases, where presumption of undue influence exists, burden to prove that undue influence was not applied, lies on the dominant party, otherwise, on the aggrieved party.
5. Section 19 A gives discretion to the court to set aside the contract and restore benefits on such terms and conditions as the court may seem just 6. It is not criminal in nature. 7. Undue influence covers only parties to contract though a stranger to contract may be affected.