VITIATING ELEMENTS OF FREE CONSENT: A ‘HOW TO PLEAD GUIDE’
Category: Commercial Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
In this respect, vitiating factors tend to concentrate on the ultimate (with the former constituting, at most, just one generality of fairness, amongst others). Still, because of the consequent peril that contracts might be unraveled unnecessarily by the operation of similar factors, there's a need for doctrinal as well as abstract clarity. This composition focuses, first, on crucial (and recent) doctrinal developments – particularly with regard (but not limited) to the law of mistake and the law relating to overdue influence. Doctrinal developments cannot, still, be wholly understood without an appreciation of the applicable abstract underpinnings and liaison. To this end, many crucial abstract difficulties will also be examined with a view to expounding a more effective practical approach towards the vitiating factors concerned.
Keywords- fairness, overdue influence, doctrinal development, vitiating.
INTRODUCTION-
The conception of freedom of contract has two meanings; first is the freedom of a party to enter into a contract on whatever terms it may consider profitable to its interests, or to choose not to, and second, that there should be no liability without concurrence being embodied in a valid contract. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (the Act), a contract entered into between the parties is needed to be consensual for it to be valid. The Act further contemplates that indeed if both parties have acceded to the contract, concurrence of one of them may not be said to be free/ or can be said to be tainted, if the same has been attained by fraud, misrepresentation, overdue influence or compulsion. The distinction between the total lack of concurrence and a alloyed bone is real. It's only in case of alloyed concurrence that a contract shall be held voidable at the case of the party claiming it. While there formerly exists a plethora of justice expounding these generalities in respect of their nature and compass, the manner and form in which these allegations are needed to be contended isn't naturally bandied. The purpose of this blog is to cover the frequently- unexplained practical aspects (through an elucidative list of case studies) relating to the specific averments needed to clarify the allegedly tainted warrants.
PLEADINGS-
Order VI Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the code) authorizations that every prayer ought to contain only a statement in terse form of the material data without the need to include substantiation, which is sought to be reckoned on. Under Rule 4, any party who inter alia alleges misrepresentation, fraud or overdue influence is needed to specify necessary particulars in their pleadings. Thus, a general averment that concurrence wasn't freely attained isn't enough, and it's necessary to factually substantiate and particularise the same.
ELEMENTS OF FREE CONSENT-
While the Code lays out the general manner in which vitiating elements are to be contended, the factual particulars that one ought to consider including in pleadings are set- out as under-
Coercion-
‘Coercion’ is defined under Section 15 of the Act as “ the committing, or hanging to commit, any act interdicted by the Indian Penal Code( 45 of 1860), or the unlawful detaining, or hanging to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement. ” Coercion entails a trouble of any unlawful act against the person and/ or property of an individual, with a view to induce such a person to enter into an agreement. Therefore, in order to constitute coercion, the trouble must be unlawful, and it must be farther demonstrated that the agreement was entered into by strong- arming the other party. The party professing compulsion is needed to expressly set out the allegations and particularise all material data to substantiate similar allegations by laying them out in their wholeness and with a high degree of perfection.
In the case of State of Kerala vs. M. A. Mathai, the original complainant contended that it had entered into supplemental agreements with the original defendant due to compulsion. The trial court and the High Court held that the supplemental agreements entered into weren't binding on the complainant owing to the lack of the complainant’s free will and free consent. The Supreme Court, still, observed that the findings that the agreements weren't attained by free will and free concurrence, to say the least, was an deducible conclusion not supported by any substantiation. For coming to similar conclusion, material had to be placed on record and substantiation had to be led. Bare assertion by the complainant, without any material to support the same shouldn't have been accepted by the trial court and the High Court.
Undue Influence-
A contract is said to be convinced by “undue influence” where the relations breathing between the parties are similar that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to gain an illegal advantage over the other”. A party contending undue influence must demonstrate that the contrary party had some influence over him, which was used to take overdue advantage. The party contending overdue influence must set out full particulars of the event where undue influence was wielded, including the nature of the influence so exercised, the manner of exercising similar influence and the illegal advantage attained by the other party.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Ladli Parshad Jaiswal vs. The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., has held that a plea saying that a sale is vitiated because of undue influence of the other party simply indicates that some form of influence was brought to bear upon the party contending undue influence, and by exercising similar influence, an illegal advantage was attained over him by the other. The object of a prayer is to bring the parties to trial by drawing their attention to the matter in disagreement, so as to constrict the contestation to precise issues and to give notice to the parties of the nature of evidence needed on either side in support of their separate cases. The Supreme Court has further editorialized that a vague or general plea can no way serve this purpose. The party prayer must, thus, maintain the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence, and the illegal advantage attained by the other. This rule has been evolved with a view to constrict the issue and cover the party charged with indecorous conduct, from being taken by surprise. The plea of undue influence must, to serve that binary purpose, be precise and embody all necessary particulars in its support. However, the Court should, before pacing with the trial of the suit, if the particulars stated in the prayer aren't sufficient and specific. Section 16 (3) of the Act stipulates that the burden of proving that the contract wasn't executed under overdue influence will be on the party in a position to dominate the will of the other, if the sale appears on the face of it or on the substantiation cited, to be unconscionable.
The doctrine of undue influence always tried to be separated from the doctrine of unconscionability of contract; nonetheless, in the statutory realm of the Act, it may be said that unconscionability is a species of rubric undue influence. An unconscionable sale arises in contract law where there's an inviting imbalance in the power relationship between the parties. The vital difference between the two sub Sections (1) and (3) is that if the two constituents of sub Section (3) are established, the burden of evidence shifts on the party in a position to dominate the will of the other. This presumption is absent under sub Section (1). It's important to note that undue influence may not always be substantiated by direct evidence and must depend on conclusions drawn from the nature of the sale and the circumstances in which it had its origin. It's definitive to strictly study all the circumstances of the case.
Fraud-
Per Section 17 of the Act, “ Fraud ” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his collusion, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract-
the suggestion, as a fact, of that which isn't true, by one who doesn't believe it to be true;
the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
a pledge made without any intention of performing it;
any other act fitted to deceive;
any similar act or elision as the law especially declares to be fraudulent.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel vs. Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari, has observed that, it's a plain and introductory rule of pleadings that in order to make out a case of fraud or coercion, there must be
(a) An express allegation of compulsion or fraud, and
(b) All the material data in support of similar allegations must be laid out in full and with a high degree of precision. However, it must be set out with full particulars, if coercion or fraud is contended.
In Rengali Hydro Electric Project vs. Giridhari Sahu, the Supreme Court was faced with the situation where workmen contended that they had inadvertently inked some papers for the purpose of regularisation. It so turned out that the papers inked were operations claiming benefits of a Voluntary Separation Scheme. It was the case of the worker’s union claiming they were defrauded by their own leaders. The Court, while holding that the vittles of the Code would apply indeed to labour court pleadings, eventually ruled in favour of the company, and held that the manner in which the alleged fraud was eternalized, the exact nature of similar fraud and the details of the persons who contended the same were missing from the pleadings. The Court further observed that though it was a possibility that one of the contrary parties could have committed fraud, there were no specific pleadings as to the persons who committed the act of fraud, and progressed to reject the workers’ claims.
Misrepresentation-
“Misrepresentation” means and includes-
the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which isn't true, though he believes it to be true;
any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
causing, still innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
Therefore misrepresentation, as distinguished from fraud, lacks the vicious intent of the party so negotiating similar misrepresentation, and includes any positive assertions, breach of duty and persuading of another party to enter into an agreement, all without the factual intent to deceive. As an astronomically accepted rule, any prayer professing misrepresentation cannot be general, and specific circumstances ought to be averred, which show that misrepresentation was rehearsed. The onus of proving misrepresentation is always on the person professing it.
In the case of Kisan vs. Kausalyabai & Ors., the complainants contended that the trade deeds in question were executed under misrepresentation. Upon a near examination of the pleadings, the Bombay High Court held that the averments in the plaint were too vague and failed to specify the date of the contended misrepresentation or how the Plaintiff was misled. The Court further held that indeed after a liberal construction of the pleadings, the plea in respect of the alleged misrepresentation were too nebulous and short of the needful particulars as contemplated under Order VI Rule 4 of the law.
CONCLUSION-
The purpose of the vittles of Order VI Rule 4 of the law is twofold. Originally, it's grounded on the sententia secundum allegata et maxim i.e., the complainant could succeed only by what he'd contended and proved. He shouldn't be allowed to travel beyond what was contended by him and put in issue. On the failure to prove his case as contended, the court isn't permitted to supplicate up a new case for him by stretching his prayer by reading into the same. It's also self-evident (and the subject of considerable justice) that the complainant won't be allowed to lead substantiation beyond his pleadings. Secondly, that each Complainant or Defendant is entitled to know any and every particular, enabling them to suitably prepare for trial and avoid any surprises.
While it's true that overdue influence, fraud, misrepresentation are connate vices and may, in part, imbrication in some cases, they're in law distinct orders, and in view of Order VI Rule 4 read with Rule 2 of the Code, are needed to be independently contended, with particularity, particularity and perfection. Farther, in the absence of any specific pleadings, per Order VI Rule 4 of the Code, it's open for the Court to permit a correction (subject inter alia to the applicable limitation period), reject the claim, or pass a decree on admission.
Thus, parties must be watchful about the allegations levelled in their separate pleadings, as well as the particulars thereof which must be furnished. Any failings in this regard may affect the party negatively, thereby indeed negating genuine claims owing to bare setbacks on the part of the draftsmen, leading to an unintentional confinement of justice.
