PJC Business

PJC 101.24

C ONTRACTS

PJC 101.24 Defenses—Instruction on Undue Influence Failure to comply by Don Davis is excused if the agreement was made as the result of undue influence by Paul Payne . “Undue influence” means that there was such dominion and control exer cised over the mind of the person executing the agreement, under the facts and circumstances then existing, as to overcome his free will. In effect, the will of the party exerting undue influence was substituted for that of the party entering the agreement, preventing him from exercising his own discretion and causing him to do what he would not have done but for such dominion and control. COMMENT When to use. PJC 101.24 is appropriate when one party disputes the existence of the agreement because it was made under undue influence. As a general rule, a party seeking cancellation or rescission must do equity by restoring the other party to his original status. Texas Co. v. State , 281 S.W.2d 83, 91 (Tex. 1955); Freyer v. Michels , 360 S.W.2d 559, 562 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1962, writ dism’d). It is not clear whether this rule applies if the doctrine is asserted as a defense. Source of definition. The definition is adapted from Rothermel v. Duncan , 369 S.W.2d 917, 922 (Tex. 1963). Although that case concerns a will contest, the definition for undue influence used in Rothermel is often used in cases involving disputes over agreements. See Decker v. Decker , 192 S.W.3d 648, 651 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (dispute over agreement to transfer deed); Seymour v. American Engine & Grinding Co. , 956 S.W.2d 49, 59 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. denied) (dispute involving stock purchase agreement). “Undue influence.” Not every influence exerted on the will of another is undue. Rothermel , 369 S.W.2d at 922. The exertion of undue influence is usually a subtle thing involving an extended course of dealings and circumstances, and it may be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence. Rothermel , 369 S.W.2d at 922. Influence is not undue merely because it is persuasive and effective, and the law does not condemn all persuasion, entreaty, importunity, or intercession. B.A.L. v. Edna Gladney Home , 677 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.); In re C.E. , No. 02-14-0054-CV, 2014 WL 3866159, at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 7, 2014, no pet.).

82