You are on page 1of 11


Submitted By
Mayur V Behara
Roll no:-01
Keval M Mangukiya
Roll no:-09
Ajay Gupta
Roll no:-05

Class:- MLW
Sem:- III
According to Section 13 two or more persons are said to
consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same
This means that there should be perfect identity of mind
(consensus ad idem) regarding the subject matter of the
To make a contract valid not only consent is necessary but
the consent should also be free.
Section 13 says the consent is said to be free when it is not
caused by any of the following :
(a) Coercion - sec 15
(b) Undue influence - sec 16
(c) Fraud
(d) Misrepresentation - sec 17,18
(e) Mistake sec 20,21
Coercion is committing
or threatening to commit
any act forbidden by the
Indian Penal Code, or
the unlawful detaining or
threatening to detain any
property to the prejudice
of any person,
whatsoever with the
intention of causing any
person to enter into an
agreement .
UNDUE Following are the parties
INFLUENCE that can be affected by
undue influence
Doctor and patient
Undue influence is the
improper use of any power Lawyer and client
possessed over the mind of the Guardian and ward
contracting party. According to
Trustee and beneficiary
section 16 a contract is said to
be affected by undue influence Teacher and student
The relations subsisting
between the parties are such
that one of the parties is in a
position to dominate the will
of other.
Uses that position to obtain an By operation you just execute a deed
unfair advantage over the of giving your Whole property to me
Examples of fraud:-
Manoj was induced to buy shares in
(Sec-17) a company on account of a false
Misrepresentation of statement made by a stranger. It was
facts may be held that he could not get out of the
intentional or bargains because false statement was
innocent. Intentional not made by the company or its
misrepresentation has agent.
been termed as Fraud Manoj says to deepika his coat is
and innocent made of pure wool ,though he knows
misrepresentation has that it is untrue .Deepika purchases
been termed simply as the coat believing Manojs statement
misrepresentation in to be true ,It is a fraud by Manoj and
the contract act. therefore contract is voidable at
deepikas option.
Difference between fraud and
Misrepresentation misrepresentation:-
Misrepresentation Fraud
Misrepresentation is a
false representation
made innocently without
any intention of There is no intention In fraud the false
deceiving the other party to deceive or to gain statement is made
.It may include two any undue advantage deliberately with a
things: clear intention of
(a) wrong statement of a deceiving the other
material fact not known party
to be false
(b) Non-disclosure of It makes the other In fraud the injured
facts where there is a contract only party besides
legal duty to disclose voidable at the avoiding the contract
without intention to option of the party may also claim the
deceive whose consent has damages.
been so caused
(b) mistake as to private rights of the
Mistake parties treated as mistake of fact .
(Sec-20-21) Here , the agreement will be void in
Mistake are of two case of bilateral mistake only.
type Mistake of fact:-
A. Mistake of law A. Bilateral mistake
B. Mistake of fact B. Unilateral mistake are two types of
Mistake of law mistake of fact
Mistake of law is
further divided into
three categories
A. (a) mistake of
Indian law
B. (b) mistake of
foreign law
Section 20 states that were both the parties to an agreement are
under a mistake as to a matter of fact, essential to the
agreement shall be void. The mistake shall be termed as
bilateral mistake of fact only when both of the following
conditions are satisfied
(a) it should be committed by both the parties
(b) it should relate to a matter of fact essential to the
E.g.-A agrees to buy certain horse from B .It turns out that the
horse was dead at the time of the agreement ,though neither
party was aware about this fact. The agreement is void.
One party to a contract is under a mistake of fact, the
contract is voidable .unilateral mistake do not affect the
validity of contract unless they concern some fundamental
Example: A agreed to buy certain wheat from B believing
that they were old.Infact wheat offered were new. It was held
that A could not avoid the contract on the ground that he had
a mistaken impression as to the oldness of wheat.