The current hypothetical scenario involves the contract between Ed and Becky concerning the building of the house. However, Becky has sought legal advice after signing a new deal and wants to cancel it. To establish whether the contract may be rescinded or declared void, it is necessary to provide sufficient evidence concerning the obligatory conditions to cancel the contract. In this particular case, the best course of action is to utilize the principles of ‘capacity to contract’ and ‘duress and undue influence’ since Becky was indirectly forced to sign the contract. Nevertheless, it is necessary to prove that the contract is voidable by analyzing the case and identifying any potential evidence that supports Becky’s claim.
The primary elements of the situation are the action under the influence (Becky has drunk a bottle of champagne), the validity of Ed’s claims (accusation of fraud), and the extent of undue influence. The first condition, action under the influence, is frequently considered an aggravating factor. However, intoxication might be a sufficient reason to claim the ‘capacity to contract’ breach if the other party took advantage of it (Findlaw, 2020). In general, ‘capacity to contract’ refers to the legal ability of the individual to sign the contract (Findlaw, 2020). Therefore, if the person is unable to do it due to age, mental health, or intoxication, it is possible to rescind the contract. In the current case, Becky has drunk an entire bottle of champagne in a short period of time just before the meeting, which has caused a significant intoxication. There is no evidence that Ed took advantage of it; however, Becky was partly impaired when signing the contract. This fact alone is not sufficient evidence to rescind the deal due to voluntary intoxication; however, it might become additional proof combined with other aggravating factors.
The second condition is the validity of Ed’s claims concerning fraud. The hypothetical scenario does not provide enough evidence in regard to Ed’s allegations and requires additional elaboration. However, for the sake of the current work, it is safe to assume that Ed’s claims are unsubstantiated since, otherwise, he would not have to resort to undue influence. Therefore, the primary aggravating factor that acts as supporting evidence for Becky’s claim is the undue influence or duress. Duress generally refers to a severe threat that forces the individual to sign the contract (Findlaw, 2020). The most frequent types of duress are threats of violence, direct intimidation, and unlawful restraint. However, when the amount of pressure does not account for duress, the intimidation is generally referred to as undue influence (Findlaw, 2020). In the hypothetical scenario, it is possible to account Ed’s and his associate’s actions as duress; however, it is most likely a case of undue influence.
The only factor that might be perceived as duress is the presence of Ed’s associate that ‘stood outside the door for two hours to prevent Becky from leaving’. Nevertheless, the explanation does not explicitly state the actions of the associate, implying that there was no violence. It is safe to assume that Becky could leave since Ed had offered the option to go to court instead of signing a new contract. However, if there was indeed no violation of the previous agreement (which Ed has claimed), Ed utilized the manipulation methods and took advantage of Becky’s intoxication. In such a case, the contract should be rescinded due to both ‘capacity to contract’ breach and ‘undue influence’.
Reference
Findlaw. (2020). Will your contract be enforced under the law? Web.