Facts: Allcard joined a religious order and took a vow of poverty. The vow required her to give away all her property and she gave it to the religious order she had joined. Allcard left the order in 1879, and five years after that she decided that she wanted to get back the property she had given away. She claimed that she had made the gift as a result of undue influence on the part of the order and that accordingly the transaction should be set aside as void.
Issue: Could the transaction be avoided on grounds of undue influence?
Decision: Although the circumstances gave rise to a presumption of undue influence, Allcard had ratified the transaction after ceasing to be under that influence and could not recover her property.
Reason: The relationship between Allcard and the religious order was that of devotee and religious adviser, one of the relationships giving rise to a presumption of undue influence. If Allcard had sought to recover the gift while she was still a member of the order, or shortly after leaving it, the presumption would have applied and, unless the order could prove that the transaction was not the result of undue influence, the contract would have been set aside as void. But Allcard had waited too long after leaving the order before asking to get her property back. The court held that, by failing to avoid the transaction within a reasonable time, Allcard had in effect affirmed (ratified) the transaction when she was no longer under any undue influence.