Q.A threatens to shoot B unless B signs an agreement to sell his house to A at a very low price. B signs the agreement out of fear. Which element of a valid contract is missing here, and what is the effect on the agreement?

B's signature was obtained under a threat of physical harm, which is exactly the situation the law's definition of coercion is written to cover. …

Section 15 defines coercion as committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, to compel a person to enter into an agreement. A's threat to shoot B (an act clearly forbidden by the IPC) in order to force B to sign the sale agreement is a textbook case of coercion.

Because of this coercion, B's consent to the agreement is not free consent, as required by Section 14. Under Section 19, when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused — here, B. B may either affirm the contract (go ahead with the sale) or repudiate it (refuse to be bound), and if B …

Match the facts to the legal test: A's act (threatening to shoot) is forbidden by the IPC and was used to compel B's agreement, which fits Section 15's definition of coercion exactly; Section 19 then supplies the consequence (voidable at the coerc …

Concluding the agreement is automatically 'void' rather than 'voidable at B's option' — coercion, undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation all make a contract vo …