California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

334. Affirmative Defense—Undue Influence

Download PDF
334.Affirmative Defense—Undue Influence
[Name of defendant] claims that no contract was created because [he/she]
was unfairly pressured by [name of plaintiff] into consenting to the
contract.
To succeed, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following:
1. That [name of plaintiff] used
1. [a relationship of trust and confidence] [or]
1. [[name of defendant]’s weakness of mind] [or]
1. [[name of defendant]’s needs or distress]
1. to induce or pressure [name of defendant] into consenting to the
contract; and
2. That [name of defendant] would not otherwise have consented to
the contract.
If you decide that [name of defendant] has proved both of the above,
then no contract was created.
New September 2003
Sources and Authority
• When Consent Not Freely Given. Civil Code sections 1567, 1568.
• Undue Influence. Civil Code section 1575.
• The question of undue influence is decided as a question of fact: “[D]irect
evidence of undue influence is rarely obtainable and, thus the court is normally
relegated to determination by inference from the totality of facts and
circumstances. Indeed, there are no fixed definitions or inflexible formulas.
Rather, we are concerned with whether from the entire context it appears that
one’s will was overborne and he was induced to do or forbear to do an act
which he would not do, or would do, if left to act freely.” (Keithley v. Civil
Service Bd. of the City of Oakland (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 443, 451 [89 Cal.Rptr.
809], internal citations omitted.)
• “In essence, undue influence consists of the use of excessive pressure by a
dominant person over a servient person resulting in the apparent will of the
servient person being in fact the will of the dominant person. The undue
susceptibility to such overpersuasive influence may be the product of physical
or emotional exhaustion or anguish which results in one’s inability to act with
unencumbered volition.” (Keithley, supra, 11 Cal.App.3d at p. 451.)
• Whether or not the parties have a confidential relationship is a question of fact:
145
0071
“It is, of course, well settled that while the mere fact that a relationship is
friendly and intimate does not necessarily amount to a confidential relationship,
such relationship may be said to exist whenever trust and confidence is reposed
by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another. It is likewise frequently
emphasized that the existence of a confidential relationship presents a question
of fact which, of necessity, may be determined only on a case by case basis.”
(O’Neil v. Spillane (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 147, 153 [119 Cal.Rptr. 245], internal
citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
1 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, §§ 316–321
17 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 215, Duress, Menace, Fraud,
Undue Influence, and Mistake, §§ 215.40–215.42, 215.130–215.132 (Matthew
Bender)
9 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 92, Duress, Menace, Fraud, Undue
Influence, and Mistake, § 92.70 et seq. (Matthew Bender)
27 California Legal Forms, Ch. 77, Discharge of Obligations, § 77.352 (Matthew
Bender)
1 Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Contract Litigation, Ch. 8, Seeking or
Opposing Equitable Remedies in Contract Actions, 8.07
1 Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Contract Litigation, Ch. 17, Attacking
or Defending Existence of Contract—Fraud, Duress, Menace, and Undue Influence,
17.03–17.06, 17.25–17.28
CACI No. 334 CONTRACTS
146
0072