(i) Mr. A, the employer induced his employee Mr. B to sell his one room flat to him at less than the market value to secure promotion. Mr. B sold…

Provisions of Law: (i) According to section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is said to be induced by '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 he uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. When consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party, whose consent was so caused. (ii) The parties to a contract must either perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises, unless such performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of this Act, or of any other law. Promises to bind the representatives of the promisors in case of the death of such promisors before performance, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract. (Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872). As per the provisions of Section 40 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, if it appears from the nature of the case that it was the intention of the parties to any contract that any promise contained in it should be performed by the promisor himself, such promise must be performed by the promisor. In other cases, the promisor or his representative may employ a competent person to perform it. Analysis: (i) In the given case, Mr. A, being the employer, is in a position to dominate the will of Mr. B, his employee. By inducing Mr. B to sell his flat at less than market value for a promotion, Mr. A is using undue influence to gain an unfair advantage. Therefore, the contract is voidable at Mr. B's option. (ii) In terms of the provisions of Section 40 stated above, in case where Mr. S has to paint a family picture for Mr. M, Mr. M cannot ask the legal representative of Mr. S to complete the painting work on Mr. S's death, since painting involves the use of personal skill. In terms of the provisions of Section 37 stated above, in case where Mr. S had promised to deliver some photographs to Mr. M, the legal representatives of Mr. S shall be bound to deliver the photographs in this situation. Conclusion: (i) The contract between Mr. A and Mr. B is voidable at the option of Mr. B as it was induced by undue influence by Mr. A and therefore Mr. B can sue Mr. A. (ii) Mr. M cannot bind the legal representative of Mr. S to complete the painting, as it requires personal skill. However, Mr. S's legal representative would be bound to deliver the photographs to Mr. M, as this does not involve personal skill.