Free Consent as per Indian Contract Act 1872

Free consent, or free will, is one of the essential elements of a valid contract under the Indian contract act 1872. Section 14 of the act defines free consent as consent not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.

A consent to contract is said to be not free when the consent is said to be caused by any of following.

Coercion is defined in the section 15 of Indian Contract Act 1872. When it is obtained by committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or by detaining or threatening to detain any property unlawfully.
Undue influence is defined in the section 16 of Indian Contract Act 1872. when one party is in a position to dominate the will of another and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
Fraud is defined in the section 17 of Indian Contract Act 1872. when it is obtained by any act or omission that deceives or induces the other party to enter into the contract.
Misrepresentation is defined in the section 18 of Indian Contract Act 1872. when it is obtained by any positive assertion, active concealment or promise that is not true or not intended to be performed.
Mistake is defined in the sections 20, 21, 22 of Indian Contract Act 1872. when both parties are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, or when one party is under a mistake as to the identity of the other party or the nature or substance of the subject matter of the agreement. A mistake may be either of law or fact. A mistake may also be bilateral or unilateral. Bilateral mistake is when both the parties to a contract are under a mistake. Unilateral mistake is when only one party to the contract is under a mistake.

Importance of free consent

There is no contract without consent. Consent may be free or not free. But only free consent produces a valid contract. Free consent is important because it ensures that the parties enter into a contract voluntarily and willingly, without any pressure or deception. A contract based on free consent reflects the true intention and agreement of the parties.

If the consent of a party to a contract is obtained by any of these means, the contract becomes voidable at the option of that party.

Effects of not free consent

When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. When the consent is vitiated by mistake, the contract becomes void.

A mistake of law does not render a contract void as one cannot take excuse of ignorance of the law of his own country. But if the mistake of law is caused through the inducement of another, the contract may be avoided. Mistake of foreign law is excusable and is treated like a mistake of fact. Contract may be avoided on such mistake.

Mistake of fact: Where the contracting parties misunderstood each other and are at cross purposes, there is a bilateral or mutual mistake. Where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.

Some of the case laws related to free consent are as under.

Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti (1889): In this case, the court held that a contract entered into by a Hindu widow under coercion from her relatives was voidable and she could rescind it.
Chikham Amiraju v. Chikham Seshamma (1917): In this case, the court held that a contract entered into by a husband under undue influence from his wife and her relatives to execute a deed of gift in favour of his wife was voidable and he could cancel it.
Derry v. Peek (1889): In this case, the court held that a false statement made by a director of a company to induce a person to buy shares was fraud and the person could rescind the contract and claim damages.
Bisset v. Wilkinson (1927): In this case, the court held that a false statement made by a seller of land about its productivity was not fraud but misrepresentation and the buyer could rescind the contract but not claim damages.
Dhuramsey v. Keshavji (1902): In this case, the court held that a mistake as to the identity of a person with whom a contract was made was a mistake of fact and rendered the contract void.