Scribd
Upload
31 views

Was The Claimant Acting Under Undue Influence As To Recover The Assets

This case summary analyzes two cases: 1) Allcard v Skinner addressed whether a claimant was unduly influenced to transfer assets. Although undue influence was found, the claim was barred due to the lapse of time. 2) Daropati v Jaspet Rai addressed whether a wife could claim maintenance from her husband based on an agreement between her father and husband. Normally a third party cannot sue on a contract, but this case fell under the exception for marriage settlements, so she could enforce the agreement.

Uploaded by

Shretha lakshmi r
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views

Was The Claimant Acting Under Undue Influence As To Recover The Assets

This case summary analyzes two cases: 1) Allcard v Skinner addressed whether a claimant was unduly influenced to transfer assets. Although undue influence was found, the claim was barred due to the lapse of time. 2) Daropati v Jaspet Rai addressed whether a wife could claim maintenance from her husband based on an agreement between her father and husband. Normally a third party cannot sue on a contract, but this case fell under the exception for marriage settlements, so she could enforce the agreement.

Uploaded by

Shretha lakshmi r
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

PROJECT 2

CASE ANALYSIS

BC0170046

ALLCARD V SKINNER

ISSUE:

 Was the claimant acting under undue influence as to recover the assets

RULE:

Allcard v Skinner was the case where a woman by the name of Mrs Allcard was
introduced by her reverend (Mr Nikhil) to Mrs Skinner, a woman who was the 'superior' lady in a
protestant institution created by Nikhil and Skinner themselves. They called this institution 'The
Sisters of the Poor' and membership required Mrs Allcard to give up all of her property
(possessions) to Mrs Skinner as well as write a will stating that all property will go to her upon
death.

Mrs Allcard was a member of the Sisters of the Poor from 1870 until 1879 and agreed to these
terms, giving Skinner a total of £1,050 and stocks and shares worth £5, 870 during this time,
totalling almost £7,000 in the 19th Century, which is roughly the equivalent of £350,000 today.

When Allcard decided to leave in 1879 she revoked the will she had made promising her
property away to Skinner and then tried to claim the property she had already given away back in
1885. She did this on the grounds that she was unduly influenced by Skinner to do so without
anyone else's advice. According to section 16 of Indian Contract Act,1872; a contract is said to
be induced undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one
of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an
unfair advantage over the other.
ANALYSIS:

Although there was undue influence as the transaction was unusually large as to
be accounted for, the lapse of time barred the claim from succeeding .  held that she was
unduly influenced but barred by laches from getting restitution. And in any case she would only
have been able to recover as much of the gift as remained in the defendant’s hands after some of
it had been spent in accordance with her wishes.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore according to the doctrine of latches is based on the maxim that “equity aids the
vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.” The outcome is that a legal right or claim
will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the
adverse party. So the plaintiff was barred by laches of time in asserting the property for her.
DAROPATI V JASPET RAI

ISSUE:

 Whether daropati is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband?

RULE:

According the doctrine of privity of contract, only parties to contract can sue and be sued on the
contract. Stranger to the contract cannot sue even if contract is for his benefit and he provided
consideration. Stranger has no right or obligation they cant enforce it. But there are some
exception to the rule of the “stranger to a contract cannot sue”. Under those exceptions; cases
related to marriage settlement, partition or other family agreements. So jaspet case comes under
those exceptions.

ANALYSIS:

In this case, daropati deserted him because of ill treatment. Then jaspet entered into an
agreement with his father-in-law to treat her properly or else pay monthly maintenance;
subsequently ill-treated and she driven him out of the house. So it was held that the wife entitled
to enforce the promise made by jaspet to her father. Though she was third party to the contract,
according the exceptions this case comes under marriage settlement issue. So he was held to
fulfill the promise.

CONCLUSION:

According to the privity of the contract the third cannot sue or can be sued. But due to some
notable exceptions under the doctrine she was able to get maintenance because of the contract
made between the father and the husband.

You might also like