Agreement Genuine

22 Unlaw­ful influ­ence Where a per­son exerts unfair and inap­pro­pri­ate per­sua­sive pres­sure to com­pel another per­son to enter into an agree­ment; a stronger per­son replaces his will with the will of the weaker per­son. Ele­ments A rela­tion­ship of depen­dency — one party depends on the ill­ness, age or intel­lec­tual imma­tu­rity of the other party from unfair or inap­pro­pri­ate pres­sure — an inde­pen­dent per­son exerts exces­sive pres­sure to force the depen­dent per­son to enter into an advan­ta­geous con­tract — the con­tract ben­e­fits the inde­pen­dent party, to the detri­ment of the depen­dent party exam­ples. explain the impor­tance of “lack of gen­uine con­sent” in rela­tion to a sim­ple con­tract, incor­rectly define and describe the key ele­ments of mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion, dis­tin­guish between fraud­u­lent and inno­cent mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion and iden­tify the respec­tive reme­dies for each com­pul­sive defined, describe the key ele­ments of coer­cion and iden­tify the rem­edy for coer­cion, define an inad­mis­si­ble influ­ence, Describe the two types of unlaw­ful influ­ence and iden­tify the means of influ­enc­ing in an inad­mis­si­ble way define scru­ples, describe the key ele­ments of scru­ples and iden­tify the rem­edy against scru­ples Expla­na­tion: a bad opin­ion about the value of the thing that is the sub­ject of the agree­ment should not be con­sid­ered a fac­tual error. [3] A mere state­ment by an employer that a state­ment has been made is not suf­fi­cient to con­vince the Com­mis­sion that the require­ment to explain the terms of the agree­ment is met. In order to be sat­is­fied, the Com­mis­sion must take account of the con­tent of the dec­la­ra­tion and the man­ner in which it was made, tak­ing into account all the cir­cum­stances and needs of the work­ers and the nature of the amend­ments made by the agree­ment. [1] At Raf­fles, there was an agree­ment to ship goods on a ship called Peer­less, but each part referred to a dif­fer­ent ship. There­fore, each party had a dif­fer­ent under­stand­ing of not com­mu­ni­cat­ing on the date on which the goods would be shipped. Fac­tual error: if both par­ties con­clude an agree­ment, there is an error with regard to a fact essen­tial to the agree­ment, the agree­ment is coun­ter­vail­able. Although the con­tract may have the basis for a valid offer, accep­tance, legal inten­tions and against con­sid­er­a­tion, its valid­ity or appli­ca­tion may be influ­enced by a num­ber of fac­tors. The agree­ment can have a real agree­ment between the par­ties. In other words, although the par­ties have appar­ently reached an agree­ment, it may not have actu­ally been reached due to fault, pres­sure, injus­tice or fear on the part of the par­ties con­cerned. For the pur­poses of this course, we focus on the theme “lack of true con­sent” and, in par­tic­u­lar, on the prob­lems of mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion (both inno­cent and fraud­u­lent), unac­cept­able influ­ence, coer­cion and unscrupu­lous behaviour.

In such cir­cum­stances, the par­ties did not enter into the con­tract vol­un­tar­ily or with gen­uine con­sent, although at first glance the rules of offer and accep­tance may appear to be ful­filled. Here, the law allows the inno­cent party to “avoid” the con­tract, which implies the return of the par­ties to the pre-contractual posi­tion. Such a means is called res­ig­na­tion. Please note that the issue of “error”, which also falls under the cat­e­gory of “actual con­sent” or “lack of gen­uine con­sent”, is not part of this course.…