Free Consent under Indian Contract Act
🔹 Definition of Free Consent — Section 14
According to Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
"Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by:"
Coercion – Section 15
Undue Influence – Section 16
Fraud – Section 17
Misrepresentation – Section 18
Mistake – Sections 20, 21, and 22
🔹 What is Consent? — Section 13
Before defining free consent, the Act defines consent in Section 13:
"Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense."
This is also called the principle of “consensus ad idem”, meaning both parties must have the same understanding of the contract.
🔹 Elements That Vitiate Free Consent
1. Coercion (Section 15)
Definition: Coercion is committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or unlawfully detaining any property to compel someone to enter into a contract.
Example: Threatening someone with violence unless they sign a contract.
2. Undue Influence (Section 16)
Definition: When one party is in a position to dominate the will of another and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage.
Example: A doctor influencing a mentally weak patient to sign a financial document.
3. Fraud (Section 17)
Definition: Fraud includes false representation of facts, active concealment, or any other deceitful means with intent to deceive or induce the other party to enter into the contract.
Example: Selling fake gold as real gold.
4. Misrepresentation (Section 18)
Definition: Misrepresentation involves innocent but false statements made without intent to deceive, but which nonetheless induce a party to enter the contract.
Example: Selling a product based on a mistaken but honest belief about its quality.
5. Mistake (Sections 20-22)
Mistake may be of fact or of law.
Bilateral Mistake (Section 20): Both parties are mistaken about a fundamental fact → Contract is void.
Unilateral Mistake (Section 22): Only one party is mistaken → Contract is not voidable, unless the mistake is induced by the other party.
🔹 Legal Effects of Lack of Free Consent
| Cause of Lack of Free Consent | Legal Effect |
|---|---|
| Coercion | Voidable at the option of the coerced party |
| Undue Influence | Voidable at the option of the influenced party |
| Fraud | Voidable, and the party can also claim damages |
| Misrepresentation | Voidable, but no damages unless there's a duty to disclose |
| Mistake of Fact (bilateral) | Void |
| Mistake of Fact (unilateral) | Generally valid |
| Mistake of Law | Not a ground for voiding the contract |
🔹 Case Law Examples
Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti (1889)
A widow was forced to adopt a child under pressure from relatives to get her husband's body cremated. The contract was held voidable due to coercion.
Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande (1890)
A spiritual guru induced his disciple to donate all property. Held: Undue influence made the contract voidable.
✅ Summary
| Term | Description |
|---|---|
| Free Consent | Consent not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake |
| Importance | Essential for a valid and enforceable contract |
| Effect of No Free Consent | Contract becomes void or voidable depending on the circumstances |
Let me know if you'd like a flowchart, notes for exams, or case law summaries!Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “free consent” is a foundational requirement for a valid contract. If the consent of the parties is not free, the contract may be voidable or even void in certain cases.
🔹 Definition of Free Consent — Section 14
According to Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
"Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by:"
Coercion – Section 15
Undue Influence – Section 16
Fraud – Section 17
Misrepresentation – Section 18
Mistake – Sections 20, 21, and 22
🔹 What is Consent? — Section 13
Before defining free consent, the Act defines consent in Section 13:
"Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense."
This is also called the principle of “consensus ad idem”, meaning both parties must have the same understanding of the contract.
🔹 Elements That Vitiate Free Consent
1. Coercion (Section 15)
Definition: Coercion is committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or unlawfully detaining any property to compel someone to enter into a contract.
Example: Threatening someone with violence unless they sign a contract.
2. Undue Influence (Section 16)
Definition: When one party is in a position to dominate the will of another and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage.
Example: A doctor influencing a mentally weak patient to sign a financial document.
3. Fraud (Section 17)
Definition: Fraud includes false representation of facts, active concealment, or any other deceitful means with intent to deceive or induce the other party to enter into the contract.
Example: Selling fake gold as real gold.
4. Misrepresentation (Section 18)
Definition: Misrepresentation involves innocent but false statements made without intent to deceive, but which nonetheless induce a party to enter the contract.
Example: Selling a product based on a mistaken but honest belief about its quality.
5. Mistake (Sections 20-22)
Mistake may be of fact or of law.
Bilateral Mistake (Section 20): Both parties are mistaken about a fundamental fact → Contract is void.
Unilateral Mistake (Section 22): Only one party is mistaken → Contract is not voidable, unless the mistake is induced by the other party.
🔹 Legal Effects of Lack of Free Consent
| Cause of Lack of Free Consent | Legal Effect |
|---|---|
| Coercion | Voidable at the option of the coerced party |
| Undue Influence | Voidable at the option of the influenced party |
| Fraud | Voidable, and the party can also claim damages |
| Misrepresentation | Voidable, but no damages unless there's a duty to disclose |
| Mistake of Fact (bilateral) | Void |
| Mistake of Fact (unilateral) | Generally valid |
| Mistake of Law | Not a ground for voiding the contract |
🔹 Case Law Examples
Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti (1889)
A widow was forced to adopt a child under pressure from relatives to get her husband's body cremated. The contract was held voidable due to coercion.
Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande (1890)
A spiritual guru induced his disciple to donate all property. Held: Undue influence made the contract voidable.
✅ Summary
| Term | Description |
|---|---|
| Free Consent | Consent not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake |
| Importance | Essential for a valid and enforceable contract |
| Effect of No Free Consent | Contract becomes void or voidable depending on the circumstances |
RELATED Blog
0 comments