Voidable

Issue ii-Whether the contract dated 14th August 2017 voidable at the option of Mr.
Tony Snark?
It is humbly submitted that there is fraud, misrepresentation and even undue influence by Steve
rovers which is making the contract voidable at the option of Tony Snark. In order to constitute
that the contract is voidable a person must have committed -
1) Fraud
2) Misrepresentation or,
3) Undue influence.
According to Section 19 of Indian contract act, 1872. --
Voidability of agreements without free consent. —When consent to an agreement is caused by
coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the
party whose consent was so caused. A party to a contract whose consent was caused by 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 representations made had
been true.
the position of a person to dominate may also arise as a result of the circumstances in which
the contract was entered into.1 When once it has been established that one party to the contract
possessed a general influence and dominance over the will of another, it need not be shown
how in the particular instance it was used, and it will be presumed to have been used unless
contrary is shown.2
A vague or general plea can never serve this purpose: the party pleading must therefore be
required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the
influence, and the unfair advantage obtained by the other.
The burden of proof lies on the defendant.
The expression unfair advantage is used as meaning an advantage obtained by unrighteous
means. It would exist where the bargain is in favour of the influencer and unfair to the other.3

1
Ranee Annapurnee Nachiar v. Swaminatha Chettiar (1910) 34 Mad. at 10.
2
Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. v. Ladli Prasad Jaiswal, A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 190.
3
Poosathurai v. kannappa Chettiar, (1919)