Undue Influence Case Studies

Issue
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the ABC & Associates exercise undue influence over Muruku Co. Ltd? And has ABC & Associates committed fraud when in advising Muruku Co. Ltd?
Rule
Section 16(1) defines undue influence as follows: “A contract is said to be induced by undue influence 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 the position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.” Below are some characteristics of undue influence (1) Relations between parties are such that one party is in a position to dominate the will of the other. (2) Party dominating the will uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage

But the appellants transfer her land in such haste to prevent Tara from recovering her property, at last the land was transferred to a development company that owned by the first appellant and divided into housing lots, sold to individual buyers for a profit of some $500,000. The court held that the first and second appellants were acting for the respondent and there was a solicitor-client relationship between them. Appellants were not honest in that they never really intended to fulfil the conditions of the agreement. 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

Now we discuss about the evidence of undue influence, the panel lawyer from ABC & Associates used his professional position to exercising undue influence over Muruku Co. Ltd. When Muruku Co. Ltd visited the lawyer, the lawyer not a word was said about his conflict of interest which the lawyer associates owned 70% of the share of Giagantic Co. Ltd. We can know that the lawyer associates trying to suppression the fact and intend to gain advantage from Muruku Co. Ltd. When a lawyer breaches his fiduciary duty, the lawyer constitutes