Final answer:
A presumption of undue influence does indeed arise when a dominant party in a fiduciary relationship benefits from it. This presumption is to protect the vulnerable party in such a relationship, ensuring transactions are fair and without coercion.
Step-by-step explanation:
When a dominant party in a fiduciary relationship benefits from that relationship, there is indeed a presumption of undue influence that arises. This legal principle is in place to protect the more vulnerable party in a fiduciary relationship, such as a trustee-beneficiary or attorney-client relationship, from being exploited due to the imbalance of power and the inherent trust placed in the fiduciary.
The law presumes that the dominant party may have exerted undue influence over the weaker party, especially when engaging in transactions that benefit the former. It's then up to the dominant party to prove that there was no exploitation or manipulation — that the transaction was fair, understood, and accepted without coercion by the weaker party.
In scenarios where undue influence is successfully demonstrated, the impacted transactions may be declared voidable, providing the affected party some level of protection. This is a fundamental aspect of fair legal practices and applies to a wide range of fiduciary responsibilities and contexts.