When the Consent of a Party Is Obtained by Coercion the Contract Is

Artic­le 16 reads as fol­lows: It is not neces­sa­ry for coer­ci­on to be used by eit­her Con­trac­ting Par­ties or Con­trac­ting Par­ties. It may be exer­cis­ed by clo­se rela­ti­ves of the con­trac­ting par­ties, such as the son, wife, mother, and may be exer­cis­ed by the ali­en of whom the par­ty is awa­re. The basic ele­ments neces­sa­ry for the agree­ment to be a legal­ly bin­ding con­tract are: mutu­al con­sent, expres­sed by a valid offer and accep­tance; appro­pria­te veri­fi­ca­ti­on; Capa­ci­ty; and lega­li­ty. In some sta­tes, the under­per­for­mance ele­ment may be met by a valid sub­sti­tu­te. A con­tract may be con­side­red void if the con­di­ti­ons obli­ge one or both par­ties to par­ti­ci­pa­te in an unlawful act or if one of the par­ties is unable to com­ply with the con­di­ti­ons. Mis­re­pre­sen­ta­ti­on con­sists of remo­ving fac­tu­al ele­ments in order to con­clude con­tracts. Any con­tract whe­re the con­sent of a par­ty is obtai­ned by mis­re­pre­sen­ta­ti­on is voida­ble. Fal­se state­ments are defi­ned in Artic­le 18 as fol­lows: If the con­sent given by both par­ties was given in error, the con­tract is void becau­se both par­ties have brea­ched their obli­ga­ti­ons. Typi­cal reasons for can­cel­ling a con­tract are coer­ci­on, undue influence, decep­ti­on or fraud. A con­tract con­cluded by a minor is often ques­tionable, but a minor can only con­clude a con­tract during his mino­ri­ty situa­ti­on and for a reasonable peri­od after rea­ching the age of majo­ri­ty. Alter­na­tively, a con­tract is voida­ble if one or both par­ties were legal­ly inca­pa­ble of ente­ring into the agree­ment, for exam­p­le if one of the par­ties is a minor.

In con­trast, a void con­tract is inher­ent­ly unen­forceable. A con­tract may be con­side­red void if the terms obli­ge one or both par­ties to par­ti­ci­pa­te in an ille­gal act or if one of the par­ties is no lon­ger able to ful­fil the spe­ci­fied con­di­ti­ons, for exam­p­le in the event of the death of one par­ty. A voida­ble con­tract is a for­mal agree­ment bet­ween two par­ties that may be unen­forceable for a num­ber of legal reasons. The reasons that can make a con­tract voida­ble are: The con­clu­si­on of a con­tract under duress, which is a kind of coer­ci­on, ren­ders the con­tract unen­forceable. For exam­p­le, if you buy a pro­duct from a com­pa­ny and the com­pa­ny refu­ses to com­ple­te the deli­very until you give them more money, that would be a form of coer­ci­on. While lack of capa­ci­ty and coer­ci­on are two of the most com­mon reasons why a trea­ty would be unen­forceable, seve­ral other situa­tions can nul­li­fy the vali­di­ty of a trea­ty, inclu­ding: After a reasonable peri­od of time, the trea­ty is dee­med to have been rati­fied and can­not be avo­ided. [1] Other examp­les would be real estate con­tracts, lawy­ers‘ con­tracts, etc. “A par­ty who­se con­sent was cau­sed by fraud or mis­re­pre­sen­ta­ti­on may, if he belie­ves so, insist that the con­tract be per­for­med and put in posi­ti­on if the repre­sen­ta­ti­on is true. Sec­tion 19‑A of the Act deals spe­ci­fi­cal­ly with a con­tract who­se con­sent has been obtai­ned through undue influence.

It pro­vi­des that the con­tract is voida­ble at the choice of the par­ty who­se con­sent has been obtai­ned by undue influence. If both par­ties are sub­ject to a fac­tu­al error rele­vant to the agree­ment, such error is cal­led a bila­te­ral error. Bila­te­ral errors are some­ti­mes refer­red to as mutu­al or fre­quent errors. Not all par­ties agree with the same thing and in the same way, name­ly the con­cept of con­sent. Sin­ce the­re is no con­sent, the con­tract is null and void. A trea­ty con­side­red voida­ble may be cor­rec­ted by the rati­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­re. Rati­fi­ca­ti­on of the trea­ty requi­res all par­ties con­cer­ned to agree to new con­di­ti­ons that effec­tively eli­mi­na­te the ori­gi­nal point of con­ten­ti­on of the ori­gi­nal trea­ty. This type of acti­vi­ty led to a lawsu­it against Apple (AAPL) in 2012, sug­gest­ing that the tran­sac­tions were part of a can­cellable con­tract. For exam­p­le, if it is later found that one of the par­ties was unable to enter into a legal­ly bin­ding con­tract when the ori­gi­nal was appro­ved, that par­ty may rati­fy the con­tract if it is found to have legal juris­dic­tion. The con­se­quence of coer­ci­on is that the con­tract beco­mes ques­tionable. This means that the con­tract is voida­ble at the dis­cre­ti­on of the par­ty who­se con­sent was not free. The inju­red par­ty the­r­e­fo­re deci­des whe­ther to per­form the con­tract or to ter­mi­na­te the contract.

Mere silence on facts which may affect a person‘s will to con­clude a con­tract is not frau­du­lent, unless the cir­cum­s­tances of the case are such that silence is obli­ged to speak in the light of tho­se cir­cum­s­tances, or its silence is equi­va­lent as such to speech. Mis­re­pre­sen­ta­ti­on is defi­ned in sec­tion 18 of the Indi­an Con­tracts Act of 1872, which sta­tes that mis­re­pre­sen­ta­ti­on is a form of repre­sen­ta­ti­on made befo­re the con­tract is ente­red into. The­re are two types of decla­ra­ti­ons that can be made befo­re the con­clu­si­on of a con­tract, the­se will be eit­her: part of the con­tract. Coer­ci­on occurs when the­re is phy­si­cal coer­ci­on or direct use of force against the per­son or threa­tens the life of a per­son. Unli­ke coer­ci­on, the­re can be undue influence with or wit­hout vio­lence or thre­at to a person‘s life. It depends on the exis­tence of a rela­ti­onship bet­ween the par­ties, which, as long as it lasts, has a natu­ral influence on the other. Coer­ci­on invol­ves a cri­mi­nal act and, accor­ding to the CPI, is punis­hed by a per­son who com­mits the coer­ci­on. Coer­ci­on in con­tract law means that thre­ats or actu­al harm have been used to force someone into a con­tract. If coer­ci­on is invol­ved in the for­ma­ti­on of a con­tract, the agree­ment is not legal­ly enforceable. If the­re has been coer­ci­on and you deci­de to take legal action to ter­mi­na­te the con­tract, your lawy­er can also help.

A voida­ble con­tract is initi­al­ly con­side­red legal and enforceable, but may be rejec­ted by a par­ty if it is deter­mi­ned that the con­tract is defective.