ABSTRACT
The effect of a finding of undue influence (whether actual or presumed) is to render the transaction voidable, as opposed to void. Thus, a victim of undue influence is entitled to set the transaction aside as against the wrongdoer. As we have seen, the transaction may also be unenforceable as against a third party (for example, a lender) who has notice (actual or constructive) of the wrongdoing, or (less likely) where the wrongdoer acted as agent for the third party. In addition, it is evident that the right of rescission does not cease on the death of the claimant but may pass to his personal representatives: see Mitchell v Homfray (1881) 8 QBD 587 (CA), where, if the donor had been entitled when he died to have the gift set aside, his executors would have succeeded to his rights and obtained the relief sought.
