Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
UNDUE INFLUENCE (Effect on 3rd parties / doctrine of infection (CIBC (Mr…
UNDUE INFLUENCE
-
Class 1 - actual UI
Bank of Credit and Commerce International S A v Aboody, Slade LJ said the requirements of Class 1 UI are:
...must show that (a) the other party to the transaction ... had the capacity to influence the complainant; (b) the influence was exercised; (c) its exercise was undue; (d) that its exercise brought about the transaction
W/o use of presumption. 2 main requirements: consent not obtain by free will, and def's conduct was wrongful (wrongful exercise of influence)
Pressure or persuasion required must invade the plaintiff’s free volition ‘to accept the persuasion or advice or withstand the influence’. Dominated victim's mind that free will was undermined. Conduct that amounts to illegitimate pressure under the doctrine of duress will likewise be sufficient.
Rajabali Jumabhoy: there must be something wrong in the way that the influence was exercised, ie some unfair or improper conduct, some coercion or some form of misleading...
UBC v Corporate Services Ltd v Williams: sufficient as long as UI was a reason for the impugned transaction. (not whether complainant would have entered into the transaction in any event)
However, where there was an intention to benefit the plaintiff, this may in certain circumstances ‘cleanse’ the defendant’s otherwise wrongful influence
General
UI is generally concerned with an exclusive type of pressure that may be said to apply just by virtue of its existence. Exercised within context of a relationship.
Voidable: restitution, not damages. Court will restore parties to original positions and seek to do practical justice.
Two substantive aspects: the impairment of the plaintiff’s will and the defendant’s improper or unconscientious conduct
-