Coercion vs Undue Influence: Indian Contract Act Guide
Consent must be free. Coercion and undue influence both destroy free consent, making contracts voidable, but they use different means. Let's compare them.
head-to-Head Comparison
| Basis | Coercion | Undue Influence |
|---|---|---|
| Means of Influence | Physical force (threatening to commit an offense forbidden by IPC) | Mental pressure (dominating the will of another person due to a fiduciary/ruling relationship) |
| Relationship | No relationship between parties is necessary before the act | Requires a pre-existing relationship where one party dominates the will of the other |
| Nature of Force | Physical or violent in nature | Moral, mental, or emotional in nature |
| Burden of Proof | Lies entirely on the party who claims coercion | Lies on the dominating party to prove they did not use unfair influence |
The 'Threat to Suicide' Trap
A classic exam case: is a threat to commit suicide coercion? Yes, because suicide is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. Even though it is a threat of self-harm, it legally falls under Coercion, not Undue Influence.
Common Ground (Similarities)
- Both render the resulting contract voidable at the option of the aggrieved party.
- Both negate the element of 'Free Consent' under Section 10.
Test Your Understanding
Q1: In which relationship is Undue Influence presumed to exist by law?
Creditor and Debtor
Landlord and Tenant
Doctor and Patient ✅
Husband and Wife
Explanation: Law presumes a fiduciary relation (dominating position) in Doctor and Patient, so undue influence is active unless proven otherwise.