Undue influence is when someone uses their power to manipulate another person into making a decision they wouldn’t have made otherwise. It can void contracts and wills, and certain relationships are more prone to it. Signs include strange transactions, vulnerability, and proof of expediency. It is not the same as coercion.
Undue influence is power over someone else that is used to push the weaker person into making a decision that otherwise would not have been made. A classic example of a situation where undue influence could be used is the drafting of a will. Someone might pressure the testator to include a bequest or gift that the testator did not originally intend to include, using a variety of manipulative tactics such as deception, flattery, or prodding.
Under the law, if it can be shown that a contract, will or other document was made in circumstances where undue influence was involved, it can be voided. In the case of a contract, for example, the person who has been influenced will not be bound by the contract. With documents such as wills, family members can challenge the probate document because they feel it does not truly represent the deceased’s intentions.
Certain types of relationships are thought to be particularly prone to undue influence by their nature, such as spouse relationships, parent/child relationships, doctor/patient relationships, and religious/official/parishioner relationships. In other cases, the relationship between the two people is not necessarily one in which this type of influence is assumed to be present, but evidence can be presented to show that it has occurred.
Several things can indicate the presence of undue influence in a transaction. The first is the existence of a transaction or agreement that appears strange and out of the ordinary. For example, if a woman makes a donation to an opposition political party in her will, this could raise alarm bells. Being in a position of vulnerability or susceptibility is another warning sign. In the example above, for example, if the woman was elderly and heavily dependent on a caregiver in her home, this could mean that the caregiver influenced her.
Next, there must be proof of expediency. If someone capable of exercising undue influence can be shown to have had the opportunity to use it, this may indicate that a questionable transaction could be the result of that influence. Finally, evidence is needed. It can be difficult to gather evidence because people who use manipulation in transactions tend to keep their businesses quiet because they don’t want to get caught.
This is not the same thing as coercion. In coercion and coercion, people are physically threatened or subjected to physical violence to achieve a desired result. Undue influence does not involve violence or threats of violence, instead relying on other manipulative techniques.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
