Albert had cancer and was being treated by Dr. Bennington. He had carefully followed the doctor's advice, and the treatment had been successful.One day, during a periodic checkup, Dr. Bennington said to Albert, "To prevent cancer from recurring, you need to reduce the stress in your life. •Long drives in the country are great for that . Come to think of it, I'm selling my convertible right now. You should buy it." Without investigating, Albert followed the doctor's directions and contracted to buy the car. Later he found the price he'd agreed to pay was nearly double the market.

Identify and explain the legal concept under which Albert can challenge this contract.

Albert can challenge this contract on the grounds of an undue influence because Dr. Bennington was in a position of trust and he wrongfully dominated him

Step-by-step explanation

Under Restatement ( Second) of Contracts, Section 177, undue influence is an unfair persuasion that results from the dominance of one party. Undue influence makes a contract voidable

The relationship between Albert and Dr. Bennington was one of trust, confidence, and authority such that the doctor holds a dominant position in the persuasion. A doctor-patient relationship is confidential and one party is dominant over the other. Albert holds a weak position in persuasion because he has cancer and in need of the doctor's services. Dr. Bennington used his position to coerce Albert to purchase the convertible which he thought would prevent cancer from occurring. Albert entered into the contract because of pressure from the doctor. A presumed undue influence can be established from this contract since there is a relationship of confidence between the parties. The doctor; patient relationship resulted in an automatic presumption of undue influence since the relationship is of a fiduciary nature. In Barclays Bank v. O" Brien ( 1993) QB 109, the court held that a relationship of trust and confidence between the bank manager and the client resulted in presumed undue influence. In this case, the relationship is of trust and confidence and this resulted in a presumed undue influence. Therefore, the contract is voidable by Albert