The American Journal of Trial Advocacy has published Professor Robin Boyle-Laisure’s article, Undoing Undue Influence: How the Doctrine Can Avoid Judicial Subjectivity by Omitting the Vulnerability Element, 47(1) Am. J. Trial  Advoc. 23 (2024). Here is the SSRN link to the article.

In her article, Professor Boyle addresses the flaws of the doctrine of undue influence. When deciding contractual disputes, courts are concerned about the fairness of the transaction. One defense to the enforcement of a contract is the theory that undue influence was asserted. The problem with this defense, as Professor Boyle points out, is that subjectivity has crept into the decision-making process.

She proposes that the doctrine of undue influence omit the traditional element of vulnerability when establishing a claim of undue influence. She argues, that the utility of the doctrine has been declining for several decades. She provides several contexts of contract formation in which inquiry into the mind of the one allegedly being influenced has proven problematic. After examining several legislative and theoretical models, she proposes a new construct for assessing undue influence that eliminates the element of examining the state of mind (the vulnerability) of the one being influenced.

Professor Boyle first presented the proposed model as a workshop presenter before a “think tank” of the Harvard Medical School, Program in Psychiatry & the Law, in 2019.