Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Unconscionability (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience.
The law presumes that in certain classes of special relationship, such as between parent and child, or solicitor and client, there will be a special risk of one party unduly influencing their conduct and motives for contracting. As an equitable doctrine, the court has the discretion to vitiate such a contract.
Conduct can be unconscionable even where the innocent party is a willing participant; the question is how that willingness or intention was produced. An innocent party may be capable of making an independent or rational judgment about an advantage in an otherwise bad bargain.
Louth v Diprose remains an important case in Australian contract law and equity and extending the scope of unconscionable conduct, from Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] Accordingly, it is taught in most, if not all, Australian law schools as part of introductory, substantive contracts, and substantive equity classes.
This is unconscionable. But from the arguments, it's not clear the court will say Grants Pass went too far and violated the "vagrants'" constitutional rights. Read more: Abcarian: Flamin' Hot ...
Undue influence (Section 16): "Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another enters into a contract with him and the transaction appears on the face of it, or on the evidence, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in the position to ...
"Justice delayed is justice denied" is a legal maxim.It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.
A broader meaning, the Court suggested, would ban normal and usual contracts, and would thus infringe liberty of contract. The Court therefore endorsed the rule of reason enunciated in Addyston Pipe , which in turn derived from Mitchel v Reynolds and the common law of restraints of trade.