Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio: Difference between revisions

Giovani and Cesira Amadio, whose son, Vincenzo, carried on business as a builder, [[guarantee]]d their son's indebtedness to the [[Commercial Bank of Australia]]. To this end, they executed certain documents the effect of which was to provide the bank with a mortgage over a building which they owned. When the son's business failed, the bank sought to enforce the guarantee. In their [[Defense (legal)|defence]], the Amadios asserted that the guarantee was unenforceable because it was [[Unconscionability in English law|unconscionable]]. They were held to be at a "special disadvantage" as an equitable doctrine in [[Equity (law)|Equity]].<ref>{{cite journal |title='Unfair' results and unfair doctrines |first=A |last=Sykes |year=2006|journal=Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law |volume=13 |issue=1 |url=https://elaw.murdoch.edu.au/archives/issues/2006/1/eLaw_Sykes_13_2006_04.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150312052335/https://elaw.murdoch.edu.au/archives/issues/2006/1/eLaw_Sykes_13_2006_04.pdf |archive-date=12 March 2015}}</ref> With unconscionable conduct having no definition at a legislative level (other than conduct lacking in good faith) it is largely up to the presiding judicial member to determine as to whether compliance is efficient on a statutory basis.<ref>{{cite web|title=Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 |url=http://ceds.vu.edu.au/buslaw/commerci.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503010606/http://ceds.vu.edu.au/buslaw/commerci.htm |archive-date=May 3, 2012 }}</ref>