a thesis - Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

76 EXPRESS TRUSTS.
husband. Mr. Justice Pearson refused to set the settlement aside,
on the ground that the marriage was valid; the consideration was
given, and could not be undone. And this decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeal. Johmton v. Johnston (1885), 52 L. T. 76.
Fraud as a cause of invalidity of a trust is more important where
it affects the purpose for which the trust is created. This will be
dealt with later.
UNDUE INFLUENCE.
Closely connected with fraud is undue influence. "As no
court has ever attempted to define fraud, so no court has ever
attempted to define undue influence, which includes one of its
many varieties," Lord Justice Lindley said in Allcard v. Skinner
(1887, 36 Ch. D. at p. 183).
Undue influence may be actual or presumed. Where a gift
(which term is here used to include a benefit under a trust) is
proved to have been obtained as a result of the exercise of undue
influence, the donor can always recall it.
Further, there are cases in which the relation between donor
and donee, at or shortly before the making of the gift, is such as
to raise a presumption of undue influence, and the court then sets
aside the gift unless the donee can prove that it was the result of a
free exercise of the donor's will. It is immaterial in such a case
that the donor makes the gift without pressure or solicitation by
the donee, or that the donor perfectly understands the nature of
what he is doing. In these cases the court interferes, not on
the ground that any wrongful act has in fact been committed by
the donee, but on the ground of public policy and to prevent an
abuse of the relation which existed between the parties and of the
influence which arises from it. The principle on which the law is
based is that it is right and expedient to save people from being
victimised by others. " To protect people from being forced,
tricked, or misled in any way by others into parting with their
property, is one of the most legitimate objects of all laws," as Lord
Justice Lindley said. (See Ashburner on Equity, 412, and the
judgment of Lindley, L. J., in Allcard v. Skinner, supra.}
The principal relations which give rise to a presumption of undue
influence are those of :—
Parent and child and similar relations ( Wright v. Vanderplank
(1856), 8 D. M. & G. 136; Powell v. Powell, (1900) 1 Ch. 243);