Consent

Section 10 (1) of the Contract Acts 1950 provides inter alia that all agreements are contracts
if there are made by the free consent of parties. By virtue of section 14, consent is said to be
free when it is not caused by coercion as defined in section 15, undue influence under section
16, fraud under section 17, misrepresentation as defined in section 18, and mistake subjects to
section 21, 22, and 23. In section 19(1) of the Contract Acts 1950, it stated that when consent
to an agreement is caused coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement will become a
voidable contract at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. In section 19(2), it
goes on to say that a party to contract, whose consent was caused by the fraud or
misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he
shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representation made had been
true. According to section 20, it provides that when a consent is caused by undue influence,
the contract is voidable at the option of the party who give the consent.
Coercion s.15
Coercion is defined in section 15 of the Contract Acts 1950. In the case The Privy Council in
Kanhaya Lal v National Bank of India, Ltd [1913] 40 Cal 598, it explained that the definition
of coercion based on section 15 is limited to the committing or threatening to commit any act
forbidden by the Penal Code. Under the Chikkam Ammiraju v Chikkam Seshama I. L. R [1918]
41 Mad. 33 case, A, a Hindu held out a threat of committing suicide to his wife and son,
persuade them to execute a release in favour of A’s brother in respect of certain properties
which they claimed as their own. This case was become voidable since threat to commit suicide
was considered as an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. When a person threatens to kill
oneself, he acts to his own prejudice, and his action has fulfilled the requirements of Section
15. At last, the court held that the threat of suicide amounted to coercion within Section 15 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the release deed was, therefore, the case become voidable
(Barman, 2019).
. Based on the Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106 case, the defendant demanded money from
the plaintiff by way of a 'toll fee' for his market stall. The defendant had no legal authority to
collect this money. The defendant threatened to shut down the plaintiff’s stall and seize the
goods if he did not pay up. The plaintiff had no idea, so he paid the toll fee for a period of time.
and then brought an action for money had and received to recover the money paid under duress
falls under duress to goods. In this case, toll money was illegally taken from the plaintiff under
a threat. The plaintiff’s consent to pay was obtain by coercion. It is due to avoid the stall being
shut down. The case falls under duress of goods in contract law. Thus, the court held that the
plaintiff was allowed to recover all the toll money that had been paid in the law of restitution.

Under section 15, coercion also defined as an unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any
property from any person “with the intention of causing the person to enter into an agreement”.
As an illustration, there is coercion when an agent who is going to leave refuse to hand over
the account books to the new entrant until the principal facilitates the execution of the release.
This also means that the definition of “coercion” under section 15 applies solely to the
consideration of whether there has been free consent to an agreement so as to render it a
contract under section 10 of the Contract Acts 1950. Coercion is confined to offences under
the Penal Code only and does not extend to tortious acts of offences under any law. The case
Ranganayakamma v Alwar Setti, a 13 years-old Hindu widow was forces to adopt a boy. On
the death of her husband, the relatives of the adopted boy obstructed to remove the husband’s
dead body from her house for cremation, if the widow does not adopt the boy. The widow has
no choice, she can only adopt the boy. This also caused an offence in others peoples’ feeling
because the widow was feeling sad with the lost of husband and those relatives still even cause
the disturbance during the funeral ceremony. In this case, the adoption is voidable since her
consent is obtained by coercion. It was held that the adoption was not binding on the widow as
her consent had been obtained by coercion (Rana, n.d.).
CHIN NAM BEE DEVPT SDN BHD v TAI KIM CHOO & 4 ORS [1988] 2 MLJ 117
The respondents purchased homes off the plan to be constructed by the appellants. Each of the
respondents had signed a sale & purchase agreement to purchase a house at $29,500.
Subsequently, the respondent was made to pay an additional $4,000. the court was asked to
determine if the additional payment was made voluntarily or under threat by the appellants to
cancel the respondents’ booking for their houses. The lower court had found that payment was
not voluntarily but had been made under threat.
Since the respondents paid the additional $4,000 unwillingly, so there is coercion among them.
Held - on appeal, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court which ruled that there was
coercion as defined in s. 15 . It further added that the definition in s. 15 should only apply for
the purpose contained in s.14 , and not for the entire Act.
The available remedies (Jasman, n.d.)
Coercion under section 15 of the Act – the agreement/ contract voidable at the option of the
party whose consent obtained by coercion i.e. the party whose consent obtained by coercion
can annul the contract.
Coercion under section 73 of the Act – A person to whom money has been paid, or anything
delivered under coercion, must repay or return it.
1. [1988] 2 MLJ 117.
2. An example of an agreement which resembles a contract can be seen in the illustration (b)
of section 73 of the Act:
“A railway company refuses to deliver up certain goods to the consignee, except upon the
payment of an illegal charge for carriage. The consignee pays the sum charged in order to
obtain the goods. He is entitled to recover so much of the charge as was illegally excessive.”
3. [1980] A.C. 614.

Barman, M. (2019). Coercion, undue influence & difference between coercion and undue
influence. Law Times Journal. Retrieved from: https://lawtimesjournal.in/coercion-undue-
influence-difference-between-coercion-and-undue-influence/
Rana, J. (n.d.). Free consent (coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, mistake).
Retrieved from: http://legalcode.co.in/2020/03/free-consent-coercion-undue-influence-fraud-
misrepresentation-mistake/
Jasman, S. (n.d.). Contract 101- Coercion in contract. Retrieved from:
https://fareezlaw.com/contract-act/contract-101-coercion-in-contract/