Question Description
Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?a)Yes, regardless of when consent was given, Chans free consent was later affected due to feeling pressurised.b)No, as he gave free consent to the contract and feeling pressurised later does not invalidate a contract.c)Yes, as Chan was of the view that the big trader had the power to take over the business of others; so this fear is justified to invalidate the contract.d)Yes, it can be invalidated at the option of Chan as his consent was obtained by the use of undue influence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?a)Yes, regardless of when consent was given, Chans free consent was later affected due to feeling pressurised.b)No, as he gave free consent to the contract and feeling pressurised later does not invalidate a contract.c)Yes, as Chan was of the view that the big trader had the power to take over the business of others; so this fear is justified to invalidate the contract.d)Yes, it can be invalidated at the option of Chan as his consent was obtained by the use of undue influence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?a)Yes, regardless of when consent was given, Chans free consent was later affected due to feeling pressurised.b)No, as he gave free consent to the contract and feeling pressurised later does not invalidate a contract.c)Yes, as Chan was of the view that the big trader had the power to take over the business of others; so this fear is justified to invalidate the contract.d)Yes, it can be invalidated at the option of Chan as his consent was obtained by the use of undue influence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?a)Yes, regardless of when consent was given, Chans free consent was later affected due to feeling pressurised.b)No, as he gave free consent to the contract and feeling pressurised later does not invalidate a contract.c)Yes, as Chan was of the view that the big trader had the power to take over the business of others; so this fear is justified to invalidate the contract.d)Yes, it can be invalidated at the option of Chan as his consent was obtained by the use of undue influence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?a)Yes, regardless of when consent was given, Chans free consent was later affected due to feeling pressurised.b)No, as he gave free consent to the contract and feeling pressurised later does not invalidate a contract.c)Yes, as Chan was of the view that the big trader had the power to take over the business of others; so this fear is justified to invalidate the contract.d)Yes, it can be invalidated at the option of Chan as his consent was obtained by the use of undue influence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?a)Yes, regardless of when consent was given, Chans free consent was later affected due to feeling pressurised.b)No, as he gave free consent to the contract and feeling pressurised later does not invalidate a contract.c)Yes, as Chan was of the view that the big trader had the power to take over the business of others; so this fear is justified to invalidate the contract.d)Yes, it can be invalidated at the option of Chan as his consent was obtained by the use of undue influence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?a)Yes, regardless of when consent was given, Chans free consent was later affected due to feeling pressurised.b)No, as he gave free consent to the contract and feeling pressurised later does not invalidate a contract.c)Yes, as Chan was of the view that the big trader had the power to take over the business of others; so this fear is justified to invalidate the contract.d)Yes, it can be invalidated at the option of Chan as his consent was obtained by the use of undue influence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?a)Yes, regardless of when consent was given, Chans free consent was later affected due to feeling pressurised.b)No, as he gave free consent to the contract and feeling pressurised later does not invalidate a contract.c)Yes, as Chan was of the view that the big trader had the power to take over the business of others; so this fear is justified to invalidate the contract.d)Yes, it can be invalidated at the option of Chan as his consent was obtained by the use of undue influence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?a)Yes, regardless of when consent was given, Chans free consent was later affected due to feeling pressurised.b)No, as he gave free consent to the contract and feeling pressurised later does not invalidate a contract.c)Yes, as Chan was of the view that the big trader had the power to take over the business of others; so this fear is justified to invalidate the contract.d)Yes, it can be invalidated at the option of Chan as his consent was obtained by the use of undue influence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.