ABSTRACT
It has long been accepted that if a party has entered into a contract or executed a gift upon undue influence, equity would only rescind the transaction; it would not award compensatory damages for loss suffered as a result of the undue influence, which is seen as a vitiating factor but not as a cause of action in itself. The doctrine covers cases where the conditions for the free exercise of the plaintiff’s independent mind are not fulfilled because either the defendant was in a pre-existing relationship of influence with the plaintiff, or the plaintiff was subject to the coercion, domination, pressure, importunity or ascendency of the defendant. Though there is not yet any statutory jurisdiction to award compensation in lieu of rescission for undue influence, various courts in the Commonwealth have granted such awards upon their inherent jurisdictions. The English courts also seem to have moved in the same direction.
