The Carroll case: Contract Law in India

In the 1887 case of Carroll v Darcy (also known as Carroll v D'Arcy), the Privy Council of India held that a contract may be void for lack of consent if one party has undue influence over the other. The case involved a British merchant, Carroll, who had a close relationship with a local Indian businessman, D'Arcy. When D'Arcy's property was sold under the influence of Carroll, the court ruled that the sale was invalid. This judgment established the principle that contracts made under undue influence are not legally binding. What do you guys think about this judgment? Do you think it's fair to consider a contract void if one party has significant influence over the other?