This is an introduction for my essay & poster.
This research looks at a legal rule called “presumed undue influence.” In simple terms, this is the rule courts use when someone in a close relationship (like a parent and child) gives away money, a house, or other valuable things in a way that seems suspicious. Although some may mistaken "presumed undue influence" as a unified rule, it is actually not. The rules of presumed undue influence vary according to the relationships between the claimant and the defendant. The author wants to understand what norms actually guide how parents and children should treat each other in these situations.
The goal is to work out what those norms are in parent–child relationships, both when parents influence young-adult children and when adult children influence elderly parents, and to see what that means for how judges should decide cases.
The author does this by carefully reading old and modern court decisions. Instead of starting with abstract theory, the paper looks at real cases to see which kinds of gifts or deals judges have accepted as normal and which ones they have cancelled. From those patterns, the author pieces together the unwritten expectations that courts seem to be applying.
Main findings
- In the past, it was often seen as normal for a young adult to help a parent out of duty or family loyalty, even if it cost the child money.
- Today, elderly parents can still give significant help to their children (for example, to start a business or as a thank-you for care), especially when the reason is ordinary feelings like love, gratitude, or a sense of fairness within the family. Family-wide arrangements that benefit everyone are also usually accepted.
- However, courts are much more likely to cancel a deal if it leaves the parent without enough money or a secure home for their own old age. Blood ties give a little more room than other close relationships, but there is still a limit.
- The exact line of what is “normal” has shifted over time and can also vary between cultures.
Recommendations
Judges should keep checking emotional and family reasons, but they do not need laboratory-level proof. Rather, a sensible, everyday look at whether the decision falls within the range of what a reasonable person in that family might do is enough. They should also be careful not to apply old cases automatically and should recognise that family expectations can differ across time and cultural communities, without treating people unequally.
In short, the paper argues that the law’s job is not just to protect individual free choice or to punish bad behaviour, but to protect the healthy norms that make parent–child relationships work.