“Undue influence” is the most common basis for will competitions and is often accompanied by a capacity challenge. In other words, someone in possession of full intellectual capacity is unlikely to be influenced by undue influence, manipulation or constraint. In litigation, most jurisdictions place the weight of evidence of undue influence on the party challenging the will. Unacceptable influence can be very difficult to prove and the mere appearance of unwarranted influence is not sufficient to call into question the validity of a will.  This is another case of inappropriate influence, where one party, in order to obtain some enrichment in its favour, threatens to sue the other party. Even if there was no incitement to the imminent threat, the commitment of the party seeking to escape prosecution is not sufficient to the elements of the case if the desire to evade prosecution is known to know to whom the business is given. This doctrine applies to any case where a person is obliged to act in this way in order to avoid criminal prosecution. However, in the case of further examination, undue influence cannot be applied. As in Flower v. Saddler, when one debtor guaranteed his debts, as the other party wanted to go into debt to avoid prosecution. In addition, in some cases, a threat to prosecution is considered a violation of public order. The verdict of Allcard v. Skinner  has divided cases of undue influence into two parts and in cases where the charge is laid against the victim or in which a person has been abused by his or her duty.
In the above case, the Tribunal continued its review of the relationship of the judgment and found that “in the first case, the remedy is granted on the basis that no one can retain the advantage that he enjoys his fraudulent or illegal activities and, in subsequent cases, is based on public order, which allows him to avoid the abuse of influence between the parties by preventing any relationship between them.” If the approval of an agreement is caused by undue influence, the contract is a contract that can be cancelled at the choice of the party whose approval has been provoked. Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act (ICA) defines consent as the meeting of the minds of the parties, i.e. consensus ad idem (if they agree on the same thing in the same direction). Section 14 also characterizes consent as an important element of a valid binding contract, as stated in Section 10, stating that “consent is free, unless it is due to coercion (section 15), undue influence (section 16), fraud (section 17), misrepresentation (s 18) or error (s 20-22). A contract entered into under the influence of the defendant is enforceable by the plaintiff`s choice (the party whose consent was provoked) and is void under Section 19A ica. In Farmers` Co-Op Executors – Trustees v Perks, a woman transferred her interest as a tenant on farmland to her husband; The property belonged to him and the husband. It has been proven that there was a long history of brutal domestic violence inflicted by the husband on the wife, who eventually murdered her. It was assumed that the woman was only passing on her interest to the husband because of undue influence and that she was proved that the transmission was due to undue influence. It is because of the history of violence that led the judge to put transmission aside.  An opposite case is Lee v Chai, in which Mr. Lee purchased an apartment and a Porsche for Ms. Chai, with whom he had an affair.
 Mr. Lee argued that the gifts were given because of undue influence and should be set aside as such.