When the consent to an agreement is obtained by coercion, the agreement is voidable at the option of :

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 2:
When consent to an agreement is not freely given, such as when it is obtained by coercion, the resulting contract is classified as a *voidable contract*. Coercion, under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, involves committing or threatening to commit an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or unlawfully detaining or threatening to detain any property, with the intention of forcing a person to enter into an agreement. Since one party's free will was impaired due to the threat or pressure, the law grants a remedy. This remedy is the right to declare the contract void, and this right belongs exclusively to the injured party—the one *whose consent was so obtained*. This provision is a crucial protection, allowing the victim to decide whether to uphold the contract or set it aside.

The incorrect option is 1:
The contract being "voidable" means it is enforceable at the discretion of the party who suffered the wrong, not both. If *either* party could void the contract, it would mean the person who exercised the coercion could unilaterally back out of the agreement at their convenience. This would essentially allow the coercing party to escape liability and avoid the consequences of their wrongful act, thereby undermining the protective intent of the law. Therefore, the right to void the contract is a privilege reserved for the victim.

The incorrect option is 3:
The party who obtained the consent by coercion is the one who committed the wrongful act of vitiating free consent. Granting this party the option to terminate the contract would allow them to benefit from their own misconduct. Contract law operates on principles of equity and justice, which prohibit a wrongdoer from using their own illegal or improper actions as grounds for escaping a contractual obligation. Hence, the coercing party is bound by the contract until the victim chooses to void it.

The incorrect option is 4:
The term 'Stranger to the contract' refers to any person who is not a party to the agreement. According to the doctrine of Privity of Contract, only those who are parties to a contract have the legal right to enforce or seek remedies under it. A stranger, having no legal rights or obligations under the agreement, has no standing in law to decide the fate of the contract, whether to uphold or void it.