SUBMITTED TO: SIR ATTAULLAHSUBMITTED BY : REBECCA ALIDATE: 27TH JAN 2012

COERCION AND CASE STUDY

FREE CONSENT

Consent means to agree to something. Free consent means to agree without

coercion - without being forced or threatened.

Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the

same thing in the same sense.

According to the Indian Contract Act free consent is said to be free when it is not caused by - 

(1) coercion, as defined in section 15, or 

(2) undue influence, as defined in section 16, or 

(3) fraud, as defined in section 17, or 

(4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or 

(5) mistake, subject to the provisions of section 20,21, and 22

COERCION

"Coercion" is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Pakistan 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.

Commit or threat to commit Detain or threat to detain property Threat to third party Enforcement of Pakistan Penal Code

Commit or threat to commit: If a person commits or threats to

commit any act which is forbidden by the Pakistan Penal Code or to compel the other party to enter into a contract.

Detain or threat to detain property: If a person unlawfully threatens to

detain the property of another or compel his to enter in such agreement.

Threat to third party: The threat may be directed against third

persons who are near relatives of the person making the contract

Enforcement of Pakistan Penal Code: It does not matter whether the PPC is or

is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed. If the suit is filed in Pakistan, the provisions of PPC will apply

BURDEN ON PROOF

The burden on proof lie on that party who wants to cancel the contract.

He has to prove that he would not have entered into the contract, if the coercion had not been used.

CASE STUDY OF COERCION

SUMMARY

A case study of a 70-year-old patient finds his doctor responsible in coercing him into having a pacemaker inserted in his body. The doctor threatens to have the patient’s truck driver license revoked if he refuses treatment. Although the patient does not want the pacemaker put in his body, he does not want to lose his truck driver job which is how he supports himself. Ultimately, the patient submits to his doctor’s threats and has the pacemaker inserted into his body. The case is examined finding legal and moral faults with the doctor in his relationship with his patient.

CASE STUDY OF COERCION

Victim: Mr. Jones Culprit: Dr Smith

Conclusion Dr. Smith took the decision making process away

from Mr. Jones by threatening to take away his means of support. Under coercion, Mr. Jones submitted in having a pacemaker inserted into his body not because he felt this treatment was needed but because he wanted to keep his job. An injustice was made by not providing Mr. Jones the opportunity to make a rational decision concerning his health. Although Dr. Smith may have advocated that Mr. Jones have a pacemaker, he crossed moral and legal boundaries by imposing the device with a threat. Consequently, Mr. Jones’ autonomy and legal rights were violated

Thank you