Coercion and undue influence are both concepts in contract law that relate to the circumstances under which a party may be compelled to enter into a contract. However, they differ in their nature and the legal implications. Below is a distinction between the two, along with references to judicial decisions.

Coercion
Definition: Coercion involves the use of physical force or threats to compel a person to enter into a contract against their will. It is characterized by the presence of duress, where one party is forced to act in a certain way due to the unlawful pressure exerted by another party.

Key Characteristics:

Involves threats of physical harm or unlawful actions.
The victim's consent is obtained through fear or intimidation.
The contract is voidable at the option of the coerced party.
Judicial Decision:
In the case of Barton v. Armstrong (1976), the House of Lords held that a contract was voidable because one party had been coerced into signing it under the threat of physical violence. The court emphasized that the presence of coercion negated genuine consent, making the contract unenforceable.

Undue Influence
Definition: Undue influence occurs when one party exerts excessive pressure on another party to enter into a contract, taking advantage of a position of trust or authority. Unlike coercion, undue influence does not necessarily involve threats or physical force but rather manipulative tactics that undermine the victim's free will.

Key Characteristics:

Involves a relationship of trust or authority (e.g., parent-child, doctor-patient).
The influenced party may not be aware of the pressure being exerted.
The contract is voidable if the influenced party can prove that the influence was undue.
Judicial Decision:
In the case of Allcard v. Skinner (1887), the court found that a woman had been unduly influenced by her religious advisor to make a significant financial gift. The court ruled that the contract was voidable because the advisor had taken advantage of the trust placed in him, demonstrating that undue influence can arise from a relationship of power rather than overt coercion.

Coercion means forcing someone to agree by threatening them with harm or damage. The person agrees because they are scared. For example, in the case of Chikkam Ammiraju vs. Chikkam Sitarammayya, a contract made under threat was declared void. Undue influence happens when a stronger person takes advantage of their relationship or power to unfairly persuade a weaker person to agree, affecting their free will. In Allcard vs. Skinner, a religious leader influenced a woman to give away her property, which the court held as undue influence. The main difference is that coercion uses threats, while undue influence uses trust or power in a relationship.

Coercion means forcing someone to enter into a contract through threats or unlawful acts. In Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti (1889), a widow was pressured to adopt a boy for religious rites, and it was held as coercion.
Undue influence happens when one person uses a position of power or trust to unfairly influence another's decision. In Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande (1890), a spiritual leader convinced a follower to gift property, which was held to be undue influence.
The main difference is that coercion involves physical or legal threats, while undue influence involves mental or moral pressure through a trusted relationship.