VOIDABLE CONTRACTS
2.6 Undue Influence
Undue influence may arise where the parties stand to one another, in a relation of confidence which puts one of them in a position, to exercise over the other an influence, which may be perfectly natural and proper in it, but is capable of being unfairly used.73 In a simpler way, a plaintiff may be pressured to enter into a transaction by the influence of the other who was able to exercise over him. The plaintiff may rescind the transaction on the grounds known as ‘undue influence’74 and in the words of section 16(1) of the Contracts Act, it occurs:
-… where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
70Vohrah, B. & Wu, Min Aun, “The Commercial Law of Malaysia.” (Malaysia: Longman, 2004), pp.
106.
71Starke J. G., “Cheshire & Fifoot’s Law of Contract.” 5th Edition. (Sydney: Butterworths, 1988), pp.
319.
72Vohrah, B. & Wu, Min Aun, “The Commercial Law of Malaysia.” (Malaysia: Longman, 2004), pp.
106.
73Guest, A.G., “Anson’s Law of Contract.” 24th Edition. (London: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975), pp. 262.
74Vohrah, B. & Wu, Min Aun, “The Commercial Law of Malaysia.” (Malaysia: Longman, 2004), pp.
106.
30
The two essential ingredients are (1) the domination of the will by one party over the other (or special relationship between the parties75) and (2) obtaining an unfair advantage. In English law, equity will grant relief to the party who is pressured, and the underlying basis for this doctrine is to prevent the party from taking unconscientious advantage of a position of dominance.76Lord Lindley L.J. in the classic case, Allcard v. Skinner77 observed that the doctrine: -
“to protect people from being forced, tricked or misled in any way by others into parting with their property is one of the most legitimate objects of laws; and the equitable doctrine of undue influence has grown out of and been developed by the necessity of grappling with insidious forms of spiritual tyranny and with the infinite varieties of fraud.”
The law as enacted in section 16 is much the same as in English law78, and applies to cases involving both contracts and gifts.
Lord Shaw in the leading Indian case of Poosathurai v. Kannappa Chettiar &
Ors79, explained that ‘influence’ alone is insufficient to support an action to set aside a transaction. ‘It is a mistake to treat undue influence as having been established by a proof of the relations of the parties having been such that the one naturally relied upon the other for advice, and the other was in a position to dominate the will of the first in giving it’. It is also necessary to establish that such influence is ‘undue’, that is, the person in a position of domination has used that position to obtain an unfair advantage for himself and thereby causing injury to the person relying upon his authority. Finally, when the bargain has been established as being unconscionable the burden then falls on the dominant party to prove affirmatively that no domination
75Guest, A.G., “Anson’s Law of Contract.” 24th Edition. (London: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975), pp. 263.
76Vohrah, B. & Wu, Min Aun, “The Commercial Law of Malaysia.” (Malaysia: Longman, 2004), pp.
106.
77 [1887] Ch D 145.
78National Westminster Bank Plc v. Morgan [1985] 1 All ER 821; Lloyds Bank Ltd v. Bundy [1975]
QB 326.
79 [1919] 47 IA 1.
31
was practised to bring about the transaction.80These three principles are incorporated in subsection (3) (a) of section 16 of the Contracts Act: -
Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.
Illustration (c) to section 16 provides an example of the application of the above rule: -
A, being in dept to B, the moneylender of his village, contracts a fresh loan on terms which appear to be unconscionable. It lies on B to prove that the contract was not induced by undue influence.
In certain circumstances, a party is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another. Section 16(2) provides three such circumstances: -
(a) Where one party ‘holds a real or apparent authority over the other’. For example, a parent’s authority over a child, as stated in Illustration (a), which reads: -
A having advanced money to his son, B, during his minority, upon B’s coming of age, obtains, by misuse of parental influence, a bond from B for a greater amount than the sum due in respect of the advance. A employs undue influence.
(b) Where one party ‘stands in a fiduciary relation to the other’, as in the case of the confidential relationship between a solicitor and client, trustee and
80Vohrah, B. & Wu, Min Aun, “The Commercial Law of Malaysia.” (Malaysia: Longman, 2004), pp.
107.
32
beneficiary, religious adviser and follower and many others81. An example is also proved in Illustration (b), which reads: -
A, a man enfeebled by disease or age, is induced, by B’s influence over him as his medical attendant, to agree to pay B an unreasonable sum for his professional services. B employs undue influence.
(c) Where a party ‘makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress’. Illustration (b) cited above is also applicable as an example of such a situation.
In those circumstances outlined, there is a rebuttable presumption of undue influence. The equitable view is based on the fact that the confidence reposed in one party either endows him with exceptional authority over the other or imposes on him the duty to give disinterested advice. It is more than likely that the confidant may put his own interest above that of the party being dominated that a duty is required of the former to prove that he has not abused his position. Hence the burden is on him to prove otherwise.82
In a recent House of Lords decision, National Westminster Bank Plc v.
Morgan83, Lord Scarman with whom the other Law Lords agreed indicated the need to show manifest disadvantage of a contract to the party being dominated. It does appear that it may no longer be sufficient in a contract situation, as opposed to a gift, to merely show the relationship of confidence. Whether the view, that it is necessary to prove that advantage had been taken by the ascendant party of the relationship to
81Vohrah, B. & Wu, Min Aun, “The Commercial Law of Malaysia.” (Malaysia: Longman, 2004), pp.
108.
82Starke J. G., et al, “Cheshire & Fifoot’s Law of Contract.” 5th Edition. (Sydney: Butterworths, 1988), pp. 324.
83 [1985] 1 All ER 821.
33
the detriment of the party seeking to set aside the contract, will be adopted in Malaysian courts has yet to be determined.84
All the authorities cited in the preceding paragraphs were in fact examined by the High Court in Saw Gaik Beow v. Cheong Yew Weng & Ors85 where it was alleged, among others, that there was undue influence in a contract of sale in respect of a property. The court accepted the views expressed in those authorities, namely, the party alleging undue influence must show that: -
(a) The other party had the capacity to influence him;
(b) The influence was exercised;
(c) Its exercise was undue; and
(d) Its exercise brought about the transaction.
It found that none of these conditions was satisfied in the instant case.
There are a number of other local cases dealing with undue influence. In Salwath Haneem v. Hadjee Abdullah86 , the plaintiff’s husband executed a conveyance of property belonging to himself and the plaintiff to B and C, his brothers. The plaintiff agreed to the conveyance but after her husband death, she brought an action seeking to set aside the agreement and the conveyance. The Straits Settlements Court of Appeal held that a confidential relationship existed between the plaintiff and B and C. The burden of proof thereby lay on B and C to show that the plaintiff fully understood the transaction and executed the conveyance freely and without being subject to undue influence. Since both B and C failed to discharge the burden, the transaction was set aside.
84Vohrah, B. & Wu, Min Aun, “The Commercial Law of Malaysia.” (Malaysia: Longman, 2004), pp.
108.
85 [1989] 3 MLJ 301.
86 [1894] 2 SSLR 57.
34
In Chait Sing v. Budin bin Abdullah87, a presumption of undue influence on the grounds of unconscionable bargain was also upheld when a moneylender sued a borrower on a loan at 36% interest, an excessive rate, and in the light of the fact that the defendant was an illiterate. In Datuk Jaginder Singh and Ors v. Tara Rajaratnam88, the respondent who was the registered proprietor of land, claimed that she was induced by the fraud and undue influence of the first and second appellant to transfer her land to the second appellant. The Federal Court, confirming the findings of the High Court, held that the appellants and respondent were in a solicitor-client relationship, the transaction was unconscionable, and in therefore, the burden was on the appellants to rebut the presumption of undue influence. Since they had not discharged that burden, the transaction was set aside. In addition to undue influence, the trial court also found that the appellants’ conduct had been fraudulent and exercised its discretion in awarding damages which was upheld by the appellate court.
87 [1918] 1 FMSLR 348.
88 [1983] 2 MLJ 196.