No, a contract affected by undue influence is not void. It is only voidable that is the person against whom the undue influence is exacted may avoid his obligation arising from the contract. See ALLCARD v SKINNER (1887) 36 Ch. D 145; BUA v DAUDA (2003) 13 NWLR (PT 838) 657
Where a person intends to avoid has obligation in a contract because of undue influence, such person must end the contract within a reasonable time. The right to cancel a contract on the ground of undue influence may be defeated on the following instances: i. Unreasonable delay ii. Affirmation of the contract either expressly or by conduct. iii. Where a third party who had given value and who has no notice of the undue influence has acquired rights under the contract. See ALLCARD v SKINNER (1887) 36 Ch.D 145
“B” cannot enforce the contract against “A” as the contract is illegal. The court cannot lend its support to reap the benefit of a criminal act. A contract for assault is void. The court will not entertain it. So also a where a contract involves a civil wrong. See ALEXANDER v RAYSON (1936) 1 KB 169; DANN v CURZON (1911) 104 L.T 66.
“B” cannot enforce the contract against “A” as the contract is illegal. The court cannot lend its support to reap the benefit of a criminal act. A contract for assault is void. The court will not entertain it. So also a where a contract involves a civil wrong. See ALEXANDER v RAYSON (1936) 1 KB 169; DANN v CURZON (1911) 104 L.T 66.
Yes, since the contract is founded on the breach of statute, “X” cannot claim for arrears of rent against his tenant who refused to pay him as the court would not enforce an illegal contract However, where the landlord seek for recovering possession of the property against the tenant, he will be successful. See BOWMAKERS LTD V BARNET INSTRUMENT LTD (1945) K.B 65; PARKINSON v COLLEGE OF AMBULANCE (1925) 2 KB1
A contract which is illegal is void and cannot be enforced. See HERMAN v CHARLES WORTH (1905) 2 KB WALLIS v DAY (1837) 2M & W273.
Where a contract is founded on illegality, such contract cannot be enforced in court. However, where the circumstance permit, the court may severe the good part of the contract from the fact that is touched by illegality. In doing this, the court must be satisfied that: i. The illegal part of the contract is capable of being separated from the rest of the contract without doing any harm, to the contract without doing any harm to the meaning of the rest of the contract. ii. The illegal promise must not form the main part of the contract iii. The separation will not alter the intention of the parties to the contract. See GOLDSOLL v GOLMAN (1915) I Ch. 292. WALLIS v DAY (1837) 2 M & W 273; ATTWOOD v LAMOUT (1920 3 KB 571
As an uncle and a trustee, the law presumes you to hold an unequal advantage in a contract with your nephew whom is presumed to be the weaker person in your trust relationship. In-fact, by the nature of the contract, there is a strong presumption of undue influence of the burden is on you to show that you did not exact any unlawful influence against your nephew when entering the contract with him. See INCHE NORIAH v SHALK ALLIE BIN AMUR (1929) AC 127. PATIENCE JOHNSON v WILLIAMS (1935) 2 WACA 248.
Generally, every party to a contract have right to enforce same in court. In-fact parties cannot agree to oust the jurisdiction of court even by the terms of the contract. However, in this instant, “X” cannot sue “ZZZ” pool LTD to recover the proceeds of the amount won as parties to this kind of contract are bound in honour only. A honour contract does not seek to create any binding clause. See BUKO v NIGERIAN POOLS Co. LTD FSC 525/1964 OF 18TH NOV 1966 (unreported)
Yes, parties to a contract can by the terms in the court put a clause known as arbitration clause which would allow the parties in the contract to go to an arbitration first instead of the court where dispute arise. See SCOTT v AVERY (1855) 5 H L.C. 811
A party can recover property transferred under an illegal contract in the following instance; i. Where a party to the contract shows that he is less blame worthy than the other party to the contract ii. If the illegal contract has not been concluded and the party repented in time. iii. Where the party does not rely on the illegal contract to recover his property. See **BOWMAKIERS (1876) I QBD 291; KEARLEY v THOMSON (1876) I QBD 291; KEARLEY v THOMSON (1890) 24 QBD 742; SEC 19 MONEY LENDERS ACT; KASUMU & Ors v BABA-EGBE 14 WACA 44
Where there is an actual violence or a threat of violence against a person to enter a contract, such contract cannot be binding as it was entered without consent (forced consent is no consent). You will have to establish in evidence that the contract was not entered by you voluntarily, you cannot be bound by such contract. So also signing a contract as a result of threat to your property cannot make such contract signed binding on you. See MASKELL V HORNER (1915) 3 KB 106 OCCIDENTAL WORLDWIDE INVESTMENT CORP v SKIBS A/S AVANTI (1976) LIOYD’S REP 293.
Whether a contract is free from undue influence depends largely on the circumstance surrounding the creation of the contract. However, if you can show is evidence that you your nephew sold the property to you at his own volition or on an advice independent of your influence then it will be sufficient? See INCHE NORIAH v SHARK ALLIE BIN AMUR PATIENCE JOHNSON v WILLIAMS (1935) 2 WACA 248. It is important to note that it is not a must to show that there was an independent advice in order to rebut the allegation of undue influence. See HUNTER v ALTKINS (1834) 3 MY & K 113
A contract will be void on the ground of illegality where it is against the good of the public, however, whether a contract contrary to public depends on the contract and the circumstance surrounding it. The following contract will be void for illegality; i. Where the contract involve sexual immorality ii. Where it involves a civil or criminal wrong iii. Where the contract seek to prevent the court from having jurisdiction. See DANN v CURZON (1911) 104 L.T 66 ; CLAY v YATES (1856) I H & 73.
Where a married man promises to marry a woman who did not know that the man was married, the promise will be actionable against the married man. See SHAW v SHAW (1954) 2 QB 429
Generally, a contract which restrain a person from the practice of his trade and profession is void. This is where a person enters into a contract with another and agrees not to provide his trade in a given locality, such contract will not be binding. However, where it is shown that the contract is reasonable and it seeks to protect a trade which is the subject matter of the contract, such contract will be binding. Secondly, the restrain must be shown to be in the interest of the public. See NORDENELT v MAXIM NORDENFELT GUNS & AMMUNITIONS Co. (1894) Ac 535
No, a party cannot approach the court for the purpose of recovering money expended on an illegal contract respectively where such person knows that the contract is illegal. See DANN v CURZON (1911) 104 L.T 66; CLAY v YATES (1856) I H & 73; ALEXANDER v RAYSON (1936) I KB 169.