SVKMs

NMIMS SCHOOL OF LAW

A PROJECT SUBMITTED ON
Undue Influence

IN COMPLIANCE TO PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE MARKING

SCHEME, FOR TRIMESTER III OF 2015-2016,

IN THE SUBJECT OF
LAW OF CONTRACT

SUBMITTED TO FACULTY:
Prof. Sunil Gorge
FOR EVALUATION

SUBMITTED BY:
Abhilasha Pant (A032)
INDEX

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.

Statutes.2
Abbreviations2
Introduction . 3
Research Methodology.5
Relevance of the Topic..5
Objective of the Study ..5
Research Questions5
Hypothesis..6
Legal Analysis....8
Role of Judiciary .15
Comparative study..18
Conclusion...20

Statutes
1. Section 15 of The Indian Contracts Act 1872
2. Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act 1872

Abbreviations
1. AIR All India Reporters
2. v. Versus
3. ICA- Indian Contracts Act

If the creditor bank has notice, actual or constructive, of undue influence exercised by the
husband (and consequently of the wifes equity to set aside the transaction) the creditor will
take subject to that equity and the wife can set aside the transaction against the creditor...as
well as against the husband.
(Per Lord Browne- Wilkinson in Barclays Bank plc v O Brien (1994) 1 AC 180 at 191)

INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of undue influence derives from English courts. A will contest heard by Sir Francis
Bacon as the Lord Chancellor of England in 1617 illustrates common aspects of the process of
undue influence which emerged in the context of a will contest. These aspects include frail
health, and physical dependency, false affection, relationship poisoning, threats and
mistreatment, and involvement in the execution of documents by and in favor of the alleged
abuser.1
"A son can bear with equanimity the loss of his father, but the loss of his inheritance may drive
him to despair."2
Indeed, even the prospect of a loss of inheritance often drives sons, daughters, relatives, and
friends to desperate measures. Consider the following scenario: Bob, prior to his death at the age
of 90, was a bachelor with substantial wealth. He was survived only by his great-niece, Angela,
and by his friend, Smith. Angela had only sporadic contact with her uncle, which was a source of
tension and anger for him. Five years before Bob's death, Smith began taking care of him and
assisting him on a daily basis with meals, transportation, and hygiene.
1 ((Welden-Smith, 2009; Appendix B) (Nerenberg, 2010; Appendix C)).
2

Although this translation is commonly used, the literal quote reads: li uomini sdimenticano pi presto la morte
del padre che la perdita del patrimonio. NICCOL MACHIAVELLI, IL PRINCIPE 99 (Giuseppe Lisio ed., 1933) (1515).

Smith also helped Bob with his financial affairs including taking him to an attorney to draft a
will. Smith encouraged Bob to disinherit his thankless niece and leave his money to the people
who cared about him. After Bob's death, his will was read, and the entirety of Bob's fortune was
left to Smith. Angela contests the probate of the will by alleging that it was the product of undue
influence exercised by Smith.
The concept of undue influence in American law is a notoriously difficult one, and any attempt to
define undue influence often degenerates into nothing more than platitudes about "substituting
one's volition for another" and generalities concerning whether a testator is "susceptible" to a
kind of influence considered "undue" by law. To fully understand the meaning of undue
influence, it is necessary to examine its historical basis. Early Roman law did not provide for
challenges to wills based on undue influence from others.3

Marius J. De Waal, Comparative Succession Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW 1071, 1074 (Mathias
Reimann & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2006)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Relevance of the topic

Undue Influence is a very vast and important topic in Law of Contracts. In your
courtroom, you sometimes see other types of cases that involve a lack of mutual assent.
Duress is sometimes confused with undue influence. Undue influence is also a defense
to a contract and is also a situation that affects mutual assent.
Undue influence is taking advantage of another person, through a position of trust, in the
formation of a contract. Undue influence always involves a relationship between the two
parties, with one party in a superior position over the other. Undue influence doesn't
involve a direct threat, like duress does. Instead, it involves excessive pressure by the
party in the dominant position on the party in the inferior position.
It's important to note that persuasion alone is not undue influence. In order to be undue
influence, the persuasion must amount to excessive pressure that affects a person's
freedom of choice.

Object of the study

Contracts must be entered into freely by both of the parties and include mutual assent.
Sometimes mutual assent can be affected by coercion or pressure to enter the contract.
Duress and undue influence are situations that affect mutual assent and make a contract
void or voidable. The object of the study is to understand the undue influence in contract
formation.

Research Questions

What is Undue Influence?

How can undue influence affect a contract?

Hypothesis
1. What is undue Influence?
The scope of the doctrine of undue influence has frequently been misunderstood. In
Mutual Finance Ltd. v. John Wetton & Sons Ltd.,4 Porter, J., after pointing out that the
right to avoid a contract is not at the present time confined to cases of duress, remarks
that "it depends on the much wider relief given on principles originally evolved in the
Chancery Courts under the name of undue influence. He goes on to say that "duress at
common law could only be pleaded where the end arrived at was achieved by the use of
something in the nature of unlawful force or the threat of unlawful force against the
person of the other contracting party. Undue influence in the Chancery Courts might exist
where a promise was extracted by a threat to prosecute certain third persons unless the
promises were given.5
Meaning of undue influence :- dominating the will of the other person to obtain an
unfair advantages over the others.
(a)Where the relation subsisting between the parties must be such that one party is in
position to dominate the will of the other.
(b) The dominant party use his position.
(c) Obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

2. How can undue influence affect a contract?

4 [I9373 2 K.B. 389.
5 Ibid

Undue influence makes an agreement voidable. The person unduly influenced can have
the agreement set aside if he acts in good time, and does nothing to show that he has
subsequently affirmed the agreement. Again, the agreement should be avoided before
innocent third parties become affected or involved. When consent to an agreement is
caused by undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent
was so caused.
Burden of Proof:- A contract is presumed to be induced by undue influence if the following
two condition:-

1. A party has the position to dominate the will of the others

2. The transaction is unconscionable (unreasonable)
In such a case dominant party is under the burden to prove the undue influence was not
employed.
[Unconscionable transactions:- if transaction appears to unreasonable the dominant party
to prove that there is no undue influence. ]
Any other transaction:- weaker party to prove the influence was employed]
Where some transaction is entered into in the ordinary course of business, but due to certain
contingencies, one party is able to make the other party agree to certain terms and conditions
then it is not undue influence.
Example :
A applies to a banker for a loan at a time when there is stringency in the money market. The
banker declines to make the loan except at an unusually high rate of interest. A accepts the
loan on these terms. This is a transaction in the ordinary course of business, and the contract
is not induced by undue influence.
Example :
A spiritual guru induced his chela to donate all his property to the ashram and said that in
return of it, he will certainly get salvation. The chela did the same. Held, that this is a case, of
undue influence so it becomes void.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

According to Indian Contract Act:

Section 16
Undue influence defined.
(1) A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between
the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and
uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. 1[16. Undue influence defined.
(1) A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting
between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the
other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other."
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is
deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another
(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary
relation to the other; or
(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or
permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.
(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract
with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be
unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence
shall be upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in the subsection shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).
Illustrations
(a) A having advanced money to his son, B, during his minority, upon Bs coming of age obtains,
by misuse of parental influence, a bond from B for a greater amount than the sum due in respect
of the advance. A employs undue influence. (a) A having advanced money to his son, B, during
his minority, upon Bs coming of age obtains, by misuse of parental influence, a bond from B for
a greater amount than the sum due in respect of the advance. A employs undue influence."

(b) A, a man enfeebled by disease or age, is induced, by Bs influence over him as his medical
attendant, to agree to pay B an unreasonable sum for his professional services, B employes
undue influence. (b) A, a man enfeebled by disease or age, is induced, by Bs influence over him
as his medical attendant, to agree to pay B an unreasonable sum for his professional services, B
employes undue influence."
(c) A, being in debt to B, the money-lender of his village, contracts a fresh loan on terms which
appear to be unconscionable. It lies on B to prove that the contract was not induced by undue
influence. (c) A, being in debt to B, the money-lender of his village, contracts a fresh loan on
terms which appear to be unconscionable. It lies on B to prove that the contract was not induced
by undue influence."
(d) A applies to a banker for a loan at a time when there is stringency in the money market. The
banker declines to make the loan except at an unusually high rate of interest. A accepts the loan
on these terms. This is a transaction in the ordinary course of business, and the contract is not
induced by undue influence.] (d) A applies to a banker for a loan at a time when there is
stringency in the money market. The banker declines to make the loan except at an unusually
high rate of interest. A accepts the loan on these terms. This is a transaction in the ordinary
course of business, and the contract is not induced by undue influence.

Presumption of domination of will:

Circumstances
1. Where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other.
Eg. Master and servant, parent and child, Income Tax officer and assesses principal and a
Temporary Teacher.
2. Where he stands in a Trust fiduciary (benefit) relation to the other.

Eg. Trustee and beneficiary with spiritual Guru and his disciples, solicitors and clients.
3. Mental Capacity of a person is temporarily or permanent effected by reason of age,

illness or mental or bodily distress.

10

Eg. Relationship between medical attendant and ward.

The equitable doctrine of undue influence operates to release parties from contracts that they
have entered into, not as a result of improper threats, but as a result of being influenced by the
other party, whether intentionally or not.
The precise concept may be due for reconsideration, however at the present there are authorities
which are treated as being concerned with undue influence.
In Williams v Bayley, for example, the claimant had agreed to give a mortgage over his colliery
as security for debts incurred by his son, who had forged his fathers signature on promissory
notes. The creditors had threatened that the son would be prosecuted if the mortgage was not
given. The agreement was set aside as being obtained by undue influence. This case involved
pressure being placed on a party in much the same way as occurs with duress. It is possible that
the expansion in the type of threats which are now treated as potentially giving rise to duress
would mean that they would now be put in that category.
One of the main difficulties with undue influence, as with duress, is to find the limits of
legitimate persuasion. If it were impermissible to seek to persuade, cajole or otherwise encourage
people to enter into agreements, then sale representatives would all be out of a job.6
Influence in itself is perfectly acceptable: it is only when it becomes undue that the law will
intervene. Clarity in deciding when that has occurred is not assisted by the fact that the word
undue has two potential meanings. It can be used to indicate some impropriety on the part of
the influencer.
The influence is undue because an imbalance of power between the parties has been used
illegitimately by the influencer. Alternatively the word can be used simply to indicate that the
level of influence is at such a level that the influenced party has lost autonomy in deciding
whether to enter into a contract. This does not imply any necessary impropriety on the part of the
influencer.
6 Smith, S, Contract Theory (2004).

11

There is an issue in whether the concept is claimant-focused or defendant-focused. If it is

claimant-focused, then what matters is whether the claimant acted autonomously in entering into
the contract; if it is defendant-focused, then what matters is whether the defendant has
deliberately taken advantage of the claimants weaker position.
How do the courts decide when influence has overstepped the limits of acceptability and become
undue? The basic test in English law is that it is only where there is some relationship between
the parties which leads to an inequality between them that the law will intervene. The starting
point for the laws analysis is therefore not the substance of the transaction, but the process by
which it came about.
In relation to actual, the claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that in relation to a
particular transaction, the defendant used undue influence. There is no need here for there to be a
previous history of such influence. It can operate for the first time in connection with the
transaction which is disputed. 7
An example of this type of influence is to be found in BCCI v Aboody8. Mrs. Aboody was 20
years younger than her husband. She had married him when she was 17. For many years, she
signed documents relating to her husbands business, of which she was nominally a director,
without reading them or questioning her husband about them.
On the occasion which gave rise to litigation, she had signed a number of guarantees and charges
relating to the matrimonial home, in order to support loans by the bank to the business. She had
taken no independent advice, though the banks solicitor had at one meeting attempted to
encourage her to take legal advice. During that meeting, Mr. Aboody, in a state of some agitation,
came into the room, and through arguing with the solicitor, managed to reduce his wife to tears.
It was held that although Mr. Aboody had not acted with any improper motive, he had unduly
influenced his wife. He had concealed relevant matters from her, and his bullying manner had led
her to sign without giving proper detached consideration to her own interests, simply because she
wanted the peace.
7 Farnsworth, E A, Farnsworth on Contracts (2nd ed, 1998), volumes I and II.
8 [1992] 4 All ER 955

12

The Court of Appeal in this case held that Mrs. Aboodys claim to set aside the transaction
nevertheless failed, because it was not to her manifest disadvantage. The loans which she was
guaranteeing had, in fact, given the company a reasonably good chance of surviving, in which
case the potential benefits to Mrs. Aboody would have been substantial.
The risks involved did not, therefore, clearly outweigh the benefits. The House of Lords, in
CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt, subsequently indicated, however, that manifest disadvantage is not
a requirement in cases of actual, as opposed to presumed, undue influence. If similar facts were
to recur, therefore, a person in the position of Mrs Aboody would be likely to succeed in having
the transactions set aside.
Where actual undue influence is proved it is not necessary for the claimant to prove that the
transaction would not have been entered into but for the improper influence. This was the view
of the Court of Appeal in UCB Corporate Services Ltd v Williams. The position is analogous to
that applying to misrepresentation or duress: as long as the influence was a factor in making the
decision to enter into the transaction, that is sufficient.

Undue influence may be categorized as follows:

1.

Actual undue influence. The claimant must establish that the defendant used undue
influence in relation to particular transaction. There does not need to be any previous
history of such influence, although there is normally some relationship between the
parties, such as husband and wife.

2.

(a) Special relationship. This category applies to certain established special fiduciary
relationships: parent and child; guardian and ward; religious advisor and disciple;
solicitor and client; and trustee and beneficiary (but not husband and wife). Such a
special relationship gives rise to a presumption of influence only, but not undue
influence. If the transaction in question is suspicious, i.e. it calls for an explanation,
then a second evidential presumption, of undue influence, will arise. This second
presumption, unlike the first, is rebuttable.

13

(b) No special relationship. This category covers cases where there is no special
relationship as explained above, but the relationship is nevertheless one of trust and
confidence where one party is in a position to exert undue influence over the other.
Following Etridge there is no longer any presumption of undue influence in such cases.
The claimant must show they placed trust and confidence in the defendant; once that is
established, then, where there is a transaction calling for an explanation an evidential
presumption that there has been undue influence will arise. It will be for the defendant to
prove that no such influence was exercised.

Thus, an inference of undue influence may also apply even if the relationship is not within one of
the special relationships but one party, by reason of the confidence reposed in him or her by the
other weaker party, is able to take unfair advantage.
For example, in Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy, CA, 1975, an elderly farmer gave the Bank a
guarantee in respect of his sons overdraft and mortgaged the farmhouse to the Bank as security.
It was clear that the farmer had placed himself entirely in the hands of the assistant bank
manager and had been given no opportunity to seek independent advice. Although, normally, the
presumption of undue influence would not apply between bank and customer, the Court of
Appeal held that it did so here and the transaction was set aside.
It was later held by the House of Lords in National Westminster Bank Plc v Morgan, HL, 1985
that the transaction would only be avoided in such cases where the transaction itself was
manifestly disadvantageous to the weaker party. However in the Etridge case their Lordships
considered that the label manifest disadvantage should be abandoned in favour of a test of
whether the transaction calls for an explanation, thus adopting the dictum of Lindley J.
in Allcard v Skinner, 1887: i.e. is the transaction such as not to be reasonably accounted for on
the ground of friendship, relationship, charity or other ordinary motives on which ordinary men
act?

14

The evidential presumption of undue influence may be rebutted by the beneficiary of the
transaction showing that the other party exercised independent free will. This is normally done
by proving that the other party received competent independent advice. However, in
the Etridge case, the House of Lords indicated that the existence of independent advice may not
be conclusive.
In Lloyds Bank v Bundy, Lord Denning M.R. had sought to establish a doctrine whereby all the
instances where the courts intervene to set aside unconscionable transactions are based on a
single unifying principle, namely, inequality of bargaining power. In National Westminster
Bank v Morgan, the House of Lords refused to accept such a wide principle. Lord Scarman said,
There is no precisely defined law setting limits to the equitable jurisdiction of a court to relieve
against undue influence.

15

ROLE OF JUDICIARY
Understanding undue influence, dissecting it, defining it, and understanding the term, has
proven elusive in social service and legal settings. Some people have said, I know it
when I see it, making the term a matter of personal interpretation. Some state probate
laws reference the term, and a few states have definitions that can be summarized as:
Undue influence occurs when a fiduciary or confidential relationship exists in which one
person substitutes his own will for that of the influenced persons will. Other states have
definitions in criminal or other codes. Of course, judicial decisions on individual cases
exist but they are usually known only in legal circles.9
Most undue influence cases are seen in probate courts with petitions for guardianships,
conservatorships, and with disputed wills and trusts. Undue influence situations are also
seen in contract law with documents such as deeds, powers of attorney, and contracts. It
may also be present in some criminal cases. In all those situations, courts consider
evidence indicating that undue influence may or may not have already happened.
With the emergence of elder abuse and mandatory reporting of elder abuse over the last
three decades, community practitioners such as Adult Protective Services staff, hospital
discharge planners, physicians, and public health nurses who work directly with elders
have identified situations where it seems that undue influence is currently taking place.
Community professionals encounter circumstances where they believe it is happening,
where families feel helpless to intervene, and where elders are left penniless by scams,
sometimes by lottery scams initiated in other countries.
The issue is particularly important because the number of people over 65 is increasing
nationwide.
Definitions of undue influence have been difficult to legislate for many reasons. Undue
influence usually takes place behind closed doors and there are no witnesses. And, adults
are legally able to make decisions about their affairs unless a court has appointed a
guardian or conservator. For instance, an elder who is unduly influenced has the legal
9 Chitty on Contracts, (29th ed 2004).

16

right to spend his money on telemarketers even though it may jeopardize his assets.
Complicating the matter is that undue influence is often linked to impaired cognitive
capacity even though it frequently occurs when the elder clearly has capacity.
Complicating the matter even further, undue influence is present in many other
circumstances such as hostage situations, families, telemarketers, domestic violence,
prisoners of war, cults, and white collar crime. It could even apply to totalitarian regimes
that act to control populations since the elements are similar. Such a variety of complex
circumstances with varying levels of intensity have made it difficult to formulate an
overarching definition of undue influence.

Undue Influence Case

A petition was filed for the Public Guardian to be appointed the guardian of person and
estate for Ms. R. The Western Union office had contacted Adult Protective Services with
concerns about the amount of money Ms. R. was wiring to another country. Her sister in
Canada received notice of the petition and was certain that Ms. R. was being
railroaded into a guardianship. She immediately came to visit Ms. R. and observed her
speaking on the phone in a secretive manner several times a day. Ms. R. would not tell
her sister who the caller was or what the call was about.
Later it was learned that Ms. R. was talking to her dear friend who lived in a different
country and who was going to make certain that Ms. R. received a million dollars if only
she would send more money nowit was a Jamaican lottery scheme. Ms. R. thought she
was making investments. The sister became convinced that Ms. R. needed the
guardianship because she could not be talked out of speaking with her dear friend and
sending the money. She was on the way to impoverishing herself.
The court appointed a public guardian to serve as guardian of person and estate.

17

With this new statutory definition of undue influence, courts, attorneys, and community
practitioners have guidelines to assist them in determining if undue influence has
occurred or is occurring. The definition was purposefully written in lay terms so
community practitioners can utilize it more easily. Since specific examples of evidence
are included, undue influence may be more easily detected.
Implementation of the new definition, where the rubber hits the road, remains to be
seen. Education and training will be needed for the various professionals who encounter
undue influence. Attorneys will likely begin including the definition in their petitions for
conservatorship, wills, and trusts. Courts will then consider if undue influence has taken
place and if the decision is that it has occurred, will reflect that finding in court rulings
and opinions.
Community practitioners may better able to articulate what undue influence means and to
describe the specific circumstances in individual cases. The new law represents a sea
change in defining undue influence. Time will tell how the definition will be
implemented.

18

COMPARITIVE STUDY

Undue Influence and Coersion

Coercion is the act of threatening a person, in order to compel him to enter into the
contract. Undue Influence is an act of influencing the will of the other party, due to his
dominant position.

Coercion is a practice of unlawfully intimidating a person or property, employed to induce a

person to enter into an agreement without his independent will. This involves physical pressure.
It is an act of compelling a person in such a manner, that he doesnt have any choice rather than
entering into an agreement with the other party.
Coercion includes blackmailing, threatening to kill or beat any person, torture, harming the
family of a person, detaining property. Moreover, it includes the actually committing or
threatening to commit an offence which is strictly prohibited, or forbidden by the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), 1860. The acts influenced by coercion are voidable, not void i.e. if the other party
whose will is influenced by coercion seems any benefit in the contract, then it can be
enforceable.
Example: A threatens B to marry him, or else he will kill her whole family. In this situation, the
consent of B is not free i.e. it is influenced by coercion.

Undue Influence is a situation in which one person, influences the free will of another person by
using his position and authority over the other person, which forces the other person to enter into
an agreement. Mental pressure and moral force are involved in it.

19

The parties to the contract are in fiduciary relation to each other like a master servant, teacher
student, trustee beneficiary, doctor patient, parent child, solicitor client, employer
employee, etc. The dominant party tries to persuade the decisions of the weaker party, in order to
take inequitable advantage of his position. The contract between the parties is voidable, i.e. the
weaker party can enforce it, if he seems some benefit in it.
Example: A teacher forces his student to sell his brand new watch, in a very nominal price, in
order to get good grades in the examination. In this situation, the consent of the student is
affected by the undue influence.

Key Differences between Coercion and Undue Influence

The major differences between coercion and undue influence are as under:
1. The act of threatening a person in order to induce him to enter into an agreement is
known as coercion. The act of persuading the free will of another person, by taking
advantage of position over the weaker party, is known as undue influence.
2. Coercion, is defined in section 15 while Undue Influence is defined in section 16 of the
Indian contract Act, 1872.
3. Any benefit received under coercion is to be restored back to the other party. Conversely,
any benefit received under undue influence, is to be returned back to the party as per the
directions given by the court.
4. The party who employs coercion, is criminally liable under IPC. On the other hand, the
party who exercises undue influence, is not criminally liable under IPC.
5. Coercion involves physical force, whereas Undue Influence involves mental pressure.

20

6. The parties under coercion need not to be in any relationship with each other. As opposed
to undue influence, the parties must be in a fiduciary relationship with each other.
CONCLUSION

It is concluded that duress can and should be merged with actual undue influence. The
range of pressure which duress has expanded to include has resulted in an extensive
overlap between the two doctrines. Undue influence should subsume duress because it is
a wider doctrine and better equipped to deal with lawful pressure situations. Any factual
situations that cannot be dealt with using undue influence can be dealt with utilizing unconscionability. Therefore, given the recent developments of the three doctrines, it is
duress that is the superfluous doctrine. However, it is submitted that undue influence and
un-conscionability (and hence a three way merger) cannot be achieved. While there is a
substantial overlap between undue influence and un-conscionability the substance, that is,
the doctrinal elements of the two doctrines differ.
Conaglen provides a helpful summary:
[Undue influence] is concerned primarily with the close relationship between the two
parties and is determined to prevent any abuse of that relationship. The doctrine of
unconscionable bargains, on the other hand, is concerned more with improper advantage
being taken of a situation which has arisen as a result of cognitive defects in the weaker
party. Such defects give rise to a significant power imbalance between the parties, but
there need not be any special relationship between them aside from the fact that they have
come together to negotiate a transaction and one is aware that the other is laboring under
a special disadvantage. That in and of itself is not sufficient to create the relationship
which is so carefully protected by the doctrine of presumed undue influence, but it will
suffice under the doctrine of unconscionable bargains.10

10 M D J Conaglen, Duress, Undue Influence, and Unconscionable Bargains The

Theoretical Mesh (1999) 18(4) NZULR 509, p 531-2.

21