Section 15 in Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Coercion’:
‘Coercion’ means that the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of psychological pressure, physical force, threats or intimidation also some other form of force to do any act forbidden by the Penal Code. It contains a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to push a desired response.
UNDUE INFLUENCE
The doctrine of ‘undue influence’ enshrined in section 16 of the Contract Act 1950:
‘Undue Influence’ is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. Undue influence differs from duress, which consist of the intentional use of force to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is considered to be in a position to dominate the will of another;
a) If he apparent authority over the other
b) If he makes a contract with a person who suffers from such as mental, psychological, physical or disability or illness.
FRAUD
Section 17 of the Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Fraud’, to include certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another party to enter into a contract. Section 17 outlines five different actions which may constitute fraud. As a general rule, it can be said that wherever a person causes another person to act on false representation author himself does not believe to be true, he is alleged to have a committed fraud. Fraud also includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract by its agent, with intent to deceive others to induce him to make a contract:
a) The suggestion as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true
b) The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact
c) A promise made without any intention of implement it
d) Any other act fitted to deceive
e) Any act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent
MISREPRESENTATION
The word of “Misrepresentation” is defined in section 18 of the Contract Act 1950. Its includes;
a) a positive assertion, in a way not justified by the information from the person making it, of what is not true, though he believes it to be true.
b) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gives an advantage to the person who committed it, or anyone claiming under him.
c) by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of those claiming under him.
d) causing, however innocently, a party to the agreement to make a mistake about the content that is the subject matter of the agreement.
MISTAKE
The cases where there is a mistake of fact as provided by section 21 of the Contract Act 1950.
Where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake about important fact to the agreement, the agreement is void. In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void or voidable, or alternatively an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts.
The basis for rendering agreements void under section 21 is that there has been no free consent between the parties (see section 14). For a mistake to be operative under section 21, it must be a mistake ‘essential to the agreement’.
COERCION
Section 15 in Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Coercion’:
‘Coercion’ means that the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of psychological pressure, physical force, threats or intimidation also some other form of force to do any act forbidden by the Penal Code. It contains a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to push a desired response.
UNDUE INFLUENCE
The doctrine of ‘undue influence’ enshrined in section 16 of the Contract Act 1950:
‘Undue Influence’ is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. Undue influence differs from duress, which consist of the intentional use of force to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is considered to be in a position to dominate the will of another;
a) If he apparent authority over the other
b) If he makes a contract with a person who suffers from such as mental, psychological, physical or disability or illness.
FRAUD
Section 17 of the Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Fraud’, to include certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another party to enter into a contract. Section 17 outlines five different actions which may constitute fraud. As a general rule, it can be said that wherever a person causes another person to act on false representation author himself does not believe to be true, he is alleged to have a committed fraud. Fraud also includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract by its agent, with intent to deceive others to induce him to make a contract:
a) The suggestion as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true
b) The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact
c) A promise made without any intention of implement it
d) Any other act fitted to deceive
e) Any act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent
MISREPRESENTATION
The word of “Misrepresentation” is defined in section 18 of the Contract Act 1950. Its includes;
a) a positive assertion, in a way not justified by the information from the person making it, of what is not true, though he believes it to be true.
b) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gives an advantage to the person who committed it, or anyone claiming under him.
c) by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of those claiming under him.
d) causing, however innocently, a party to the agreement to make a mistake about the content that is the subject matter of the agreement.
MISTAKE
The cases where there is a mistake of fact as provided by section 21 of the Contract Act 1950.
Where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake about important fact to the agreement, the agreement is void. In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void or voidable, or alternatively an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts.
The basis for rendering agreements void under section 21 is that there has been no free consent between the parties (see section 14). For a mistake to be operative under section 21, it must be a mistake ‘essential to the agreement’.
COERCION
Section 15 in Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Coercion’:
‘Coercion’ means that the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of psychological pressure, physical force, threats or intimidation also some other form of force to do any act forbidden by the Penal Code. It contains a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to push a desired response.
UNDUE INFLUENCE
The doctrine of ‘undue influence’ enshrined in section 16 of the Contract Act 1950:
‘Undue Influence’ is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. Undue influence differs from duress, which consist of the intentional use of force to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is considered to be in a position to dominate the will of another;
a) If he apparent authority over the other
b) If he makes a contract with a person who suffers from such as mental, psychological, physical or disability or illness.
FRAUD
Section 17 of the Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Fraud’, to include certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another party to enter into a contract. Section 17 outlines five different actions which may constitute fraud. As a general rule, it can be said that wherever a person causes another person to act on false representation author himself does not believe to be true, he is alleged to have a committed fraud. Fraud also includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract by its agent, with intent to deceive others to induce him to make a contract:
a) The suggestion as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true
b) The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact
c) A promise made without any intention of implement it
d) Any other act fitted to deceive
e) Any act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent
MISREPRESENTATION
The word of “Misrepresentation” is defined in section 18 of the Contract Act 1950. Its includes;
a) a positive assertion, in a way not justified by the information from the person making it, of what is not true, though he believes it to be true.
b) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gives an advantage to the person who committed it, or anyone claiming under him.
c) by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of those claiming under him.
d) causing, however innocently, a party to the agreement to make a mistake about the content that is the subject matter of the agreement.
MISTAKE
The cases where there is a mistake of fact as provided by section 21 of the Contract Act 1950.
Where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake about important fact to the agreement, the agreement is void. In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void or voidable, or alternatively an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts.
The basis for rendering agreements void under section 21 is that there has been no free consent between the parties (see section 14). For a mistake to be operative under section 21, it must be a mistake ‘essential to the agreement’.
The cases that can be use as a references for these element which is have the element of coercion are :
Lee v. Weisman
The cases is about the students and the high school graduation. Lee as the principal of Nathan bishops Muddle School in Providence, Rhode Island. The story are about they invite a Rabbi to the graduation day during that day. Those Rabbi are needed to perform a prayer during the graduation day. The event which Rabbi will be perform a prayer are already been told by the Schools management to all parents and students. From the point of view, graduation day are a event that very important to a student which they have been learned from a very 4 to 5 years past. It’s a event that very rare to occur in their life as a students and will be one of the best day of their life.
The point of the story, one of the family students, Deborah Weisman, are asking about the Rabbi attend to the event are in the constitutional. Before that, Deborah Weisman are not really into it as they want to bar those Rabbi from attending the graduation day. The Weisman did asking to the Rhode Island District Court about are inviting those Rabbi are in the constitutional. But, they still come to the event as the Weisman family did come to the event because the District Court are denied the Weisman motion. The event are run like usual graduation day but with addition of benediction from the Rabbi.
To make it a short, Weisman continued this matter at by making a litigation against the schools Robert E. Lee principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School. During that cases, Weisman did win easily against them and from the victory, why they winning those case on what degree of charges did Weisman put against Lee.
First of all, we know that graduation day are the event that celebrate those students to get their certificates after a long period of time learning or enrolling at the schools. From this case, Nathan Bishop Middle School are the main place where the situation has appear to be a weird graduation day for the Deborah Weisman family. This is because the graduation are including a recite of benediction from the Rabbi.
There must seem that Weisman did come to the graduation day voluntarily if we see the cases as a normal, free consent from the Weisman family. But, actually they has been force to come involuntarily to the event even they do not want to. Once again we highlighted that graduation day are the event that very important for the students to come. It is true that Nathan Bishop Middle School did not force them to come and depends on the parents judgment whether to see the graduation day with a Rabbi are the good or bad things. But, if we as a student, we will want to come to the graduation day because it’s a day that they will be graduated student and will be a moment where their parents are proud to themselves.
From this point, there are element of indirect coercion. This is because the student and their parents did not have a choice. They must attend those event because it’s a one life time for their children to get certificate and there are no second graduation day made for them if they not attend that. Having no choice are one of the criteria that Mr Lee has made an indirect form of Coercion to every parents especially Weisman, cannot refuse or made a decision to comfort themselves. So, they will surely win that case because there is an element of Coercion from the situation and Mr Lee are the one who lose.
Actually there are more to discuss about these cases but what we what to highlight here is how element of coercion work in any situation and these example of case are the one we use as reference to explain it.
When we compare the case with the one we get from the groups, the situation that Suliana faced are not have the element of Coercion because she never use any harsh attitude or behaviour toward Amina to get in possession of money and house from Amina.
FRAUD
Definition:
Fraud can be define as act or course of deception, an intentional concealment, omission, or perversion of truth, to gain unlawful or unfair advantage or induce another to part with some valuable items or surrender a legal right. Fraud also define to include certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another party to enter into a contract which are consists in Section 17. In a general opinion, anyone or a person cause another to act on a false representation which the maker does not believe to be true, he is said to have committed a fraud.
Example Case:
In 2003, In 2003, there has been a case where the offender has been arrested by police for committing bank fraud offense in St. Paul Croatian Federal Credit Union. He was subjected to 27 months in federal prison and must pay to St. Paul Croatian Federal Credit Union as much as 1 million dollar fine after the court has pronounced sentence on him. In terms of cases, offenders named Marko Nikoli guilty of fraud together co-conspirator who worked in St. Paul Croatian Federal Credit Union. Marko Nikoli has provided fake documents to co-conspirator twice, in 2003 and 2005 with the same amount of loan requested, namely 250, 000. After that, Marko Nikoli has transferred both fake loan transfer it in a different account in Macedonia and off-shore accounts respectively. After the credit union collapsed in 2010, there are a few differences were identified and the police have taken appropriate action as Marko Nikoli has committed two errors of bank fraud and money laundering.
Conclusion:
Based on case study given, I can conclude that Suliana don’t do anything wrong because her student which is Amina, give her money to Suliana with free consent without forces by Suliana, Basically, Amina not good enough to handle her money well because she is to depressed because of her father death. This case study do not same with Marko Nikoli case. This is because he is try to make a loan by doing a fake document and made this happen by free consent.
‘Coercion’ means that the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of psychological pressure, physical force, threats or intimidation also some other form of force to do any act forbidden by the Penal Code. It contains a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to push a desired response.
UNDUE INFLUENCE
The doctrine of ‘undue influence’ enshrined in section 16 of the Contract Act 1950:
‘Undue Influence’ is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. Undue influence differs from duress, which consist of the intentional use of force to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is considered to be in a position to dominate the will of another;
a) If he apparent authority over the other
b) If he makes a contract with a person who suffers from such as mental, psychological, physical or disability or illness.
FRAUD
Section 17 of the Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Fraud’, to include certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another party to enter into a contract. Section 17 outlines five different actions which may constitute fraud. As a general rule, it can be said that wherever a person causes another person to act on false representation author himself does not believe to be true, he is alleged to have a committed fraud. Fraud also includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract by its agent, with intent to deceive others to induce him to make a contract:
a) The suggestion as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true
b) The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact
c) A promise made without any intention of implement it
d) Any other act fitted to deceive
e) Any act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent
MISREPRESENTATION
The word of “Misrepresentation” is defined in section 18 of the Contract Act 1950. Its includes;
a) a positive assertion, in a way not justified by the information from the person making it, of what is not true, though he believes it to be true.
b) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gives an advantage to the person who committed it, or anyone claiming under him.
c) by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of those claiming under him.
d) causing, however innocently, a party to the agreement to make a mistake about the content that is the subject matter of the agreement.
MISTAKE
The cases where there is a mistake of fact as provided by section 21 of the Contract Act 1950.
Where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake about important fact to the agreement, the agreement is void. In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void or voidable, or alternatively an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts.
The basis for rendering agreements void under section 21 is that there has been no free consent between the parties (see section 14). For a mistake to be operative under section 21, it must be a mistake ‘essential to the agreement’.
COERCION
Section 15 in Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Coercion’:
‘Coercion’ means that the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of psychological pressure, physical force, threats or intimidation also some other form of force to do any act forbidden by the Penal Code. It contains a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to push a desired response.
UNDUE INFLUENCE
The doctrine of ‘undue influence’ enshrined in section 16 of the Contract Act 1950:
‘Undue Influence’ is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. Undue influence differs from duress, which consist of the intentional use of force to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is considered to be in a position to dominate the will of another;
a) If he apparent authority over the other
b) If he makes a contract with a person who suffers from such as mental, psychological, physical or disability or illness.
FRAUD
Section 17 of the Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Fraud’, to include certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another party to enter into a contract. Section 17 outlines five different actions which may constitute fraud. As a general rule, it can be said that wherever a person causes another person to act on false representation author himself does not believe to be true, he is alleged to have a committed fraud. Fraud also includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract by its agent, with intent to deceive others to induce him to make a contract:
a) The suggestion as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true
b) The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact
c) A promise made without any intention of implement it
d) Any other act fitted to deceive
e) Any act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent
MISREPRESENTATION
The word of “Misrepresentation” is defined in section 18 of the Contract Act 1950. Its includes;
a) a positive assertion, in a way not justified by the information from the person making it, of what is not true, though he believes it to be true.
b) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gives an advantage to the person who committed it, or anyone claiming under him.
c) by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of those claiming under him.
d) causing, however innocently, a party to the agreement to make a mistake about the content that is the subject matter of the agreement.
MISTAKE
The cases where there is a mistake of fact as provided by section 21 of the Contract Act 1950.
Where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake about important fact to the agreement, the agreement is void. In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void or voidable, or alternatively an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts.
The basis for rendering agreements void under section 21 is that there has been no free consent between the parties (see section 14). For a mistake to be operative under section 21, it must be a mistake ‘essential to the agreement’.
COERCION
Section 15 in Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Coercion’:
‘Coercion’ means that the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of psychological pressure, physical force, threats or intimidation also some other form of force to do any act forbidden by the Penal Code. It contains a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to push a desired response.
UNDUE INFLUENCE
The doctrine of ‘undue influence’ enshrined in section 16 of the Contract Act 1950:
‘Undue Influence’ is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. Undue influence differs from duress, which consist of the intentional use of force to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is considered to be in a position to dominate the will of another;
a) If he apparent authority over the other
b) If he makes a contract with a person who suffers from such as mental, psychological, physical or disability or illness.
FRAUD
Section 17 of the Contract Act 1950 is defined the word of ‘Fraud’, to include certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another party to enter into a contract. Section 17 outlines five different actions which may constitute fraud. As a general rule, it can be said that wherever a person causes another person to act on false representation author himself does not believe to be true, he is alleged to have a committed fraud. Fraud also includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract by its agent, with intent to deceive others to induce him to make a contract:
a) The suggestion as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true
b) The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact
c) A promise made without any intention of implement it
d) Any other act fitted to deceive
e) Any act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent
MISREPRESENTATION
The word of “Misrepresentation” is defined in section 18 of the Contract Act 1950. Its includes;
a) a positive assertion, in a way not justified by the information from the person making it, of what is not true, though he believes it to be true.
b) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gives an advantage to the person who committed it, or anyone claiming under him.
c) by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of those claiming under him.
d) causing, however innocently, a party to the agreement to make a mistake about the content that is the subject matter of the agreement.
MISTAKE
The cases where there is a mistake of fact as provided by section 21 of the Contract Act 1950.
Where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake about important fact to the agreement, the agreement is void. In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void or voidable, or alternatively an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts.
The basis for rendering agreements void under section 21 is that there has been no free consent between the parties (see section 14). For a mistake to be operative under section 21, it must be a mistake ‘essential to the agreement’.
The cases that can be use as a references for these element which is have the element of coercion are :
Lee v. Weisman
The cases is about the students and the high school graduation. Lee as the principal of Nathan bishops Muddle School in Providence, Rhode Island. The story are about they invite a Rabbi to the graduation day during that day. Those Rabbi are needed to perform a prayer during the graduation day. The event which Rabbi will be perform a prayer are already been told by the Schools management to all parents and students. From the point of view, graduation day are a event that very important to a student which they have been learned from a very 4 to 5 years past. It’s a event that very rare to occur in their life as a students and will be one of the best day of their life.
The point of the story, one of the family students, Deborah Weisman, are asking about the Rabbi attend to the event are in the constitutional. Before that, Deborah Weisman are not really into it as they want to bar those Rabbi from attending the graduation day. The Weisman did asking to the Rhode Island District Court about are inviting those Rabbi are in the constitutional. But, they still come to the event as the Weisman family did come to the event because the District Court are denied the Weisman motion. The event are run like usual graduation day but with addition of benediction from the Rabbi.
To make it a short, Weisman continued this matter at by making a litigation against the schools Robert E. Lee principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School. During that cases, Weisman did win easily against them and from the victory, why they winning those case on what degree of charges did Weisman put against Lee.
First of all, we know that graduation day are the event that celebrate those students to get their certificates after a long period of time learning or enrolling at the schools. From this case, Nathan Bishop Middle School are the main place where the situation has appear to be a weird graduation day for the Deborah Weisman family. This is because the graduation are including a recite of benediction from the Rabbi.
There must seem that Weisman did come to the graduation day voluntarily if we see the cases as a normal, free consent from the Weisman family. But, actually they has been force to come involuntarily to the event even they do not want to. Once again we highlighted that graduation day are the event that very important for the students to come. It is true that Nathan Bishop Middle School did not force them to come and depends on the parents judgment whether to see the graduation day with a Rabbi are the good or bad things. But, if we as a student, we will want to come to the graduation day because it’s a day that they will be graduated student and will be a moment where their parents are proud to themselves.
From this point, there are element of indirect coercion. This is because the student and their parents did not have a choice. They must attend those event because it’s a one life time for their children to get certificate and there are no second graduation day made for them if they not attend that. Having no choice are one of the criteria that Mr Lee has made an indirect form of Coercion to every parents especially Weisman, cannot refuse or made a decision to comfort themselves. So, they will surely win that case because there is an element of Coercion from the situation and Mr Lee are the one who lose.
Actually there are more to discuss about these cases but what we what to highlight here is how element of coercion work in any situation and these example of case are the one we use as reference to explain it.
When we compare the case with the one we get from the groups, the situation that Suliana faced are not have the element of Coercion because she never use any harsh attitude or behaviour toward Amina to get in possession of money and house from Amina.
FRAUD
Definition:
Fraud can be define as act or course of deception, an intentional concealment, omission, or perversion of truth, to gain unlawful or unfair advantage or induce another to part with some valuable items or surrender a legal right. Fraud also define to include certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another party to enter into a contract which are consists in Section 17. In a general opinion, anyone or a person cause another to act on a false representation which the maker does not believe to be true, he is said to have committed a fraud.
Example Case:
In 2003, In 2003, there has been a case where the offender has been arrested by police for committing bank fraud offense in St. Paul Croatian Federal Credit Union. He was subjected to 27 months in federal prison and must pay to St. Paul Croatian Federal Credit Union as much as 1 million dollar fine after the court has pronounced sentence on him. In terms of cases, offenders named Marko Nikoli guilty of fraud together co-conspirator who worked in St. Paul Croatian Federal Credit Union. Marko Nikoli has provided fake documents to co-conspirator twice, in 2003 and 2005 with the same amount of loan requested, namely 250, 000. After that, Marko Nikoli has transferred both fake loan transfer it in a different account in Macedonia and off-shore accounts respectively. After the credit union collapsed in 2010, there are a few differences were identified and the police have taken appropriate action as Marko Nikoli has committed two errors of bank fraud and money laundering.
Conclusion:
Based on case study given, I can conclude that Suliana don’t do anything wrong because her student which is Amina, give her money to Suliana with free consent without forces by Suliana, Basically, Amina not good enough to handle her money well because she is to depressed because of her father death. This case study do not same with Marko Nikoli case. This is because he is try to make a loan by doing a fake document and made this happen by free consent.