Content deleted Content added
Disambiguated: liability → liability (financial accounting) using Dab solver |
changed {{Unreferenced}} to {{Refimprove}} & general fixes using AWB (8062) |
||
Line 1:
{{Multiple issues|cleanup-reorganize=December 2011|context=December 2011|orphan=December 2011|
{{Infobox Court Case
Line 11:
}}
The Amadios, whose son carried on business as a builder, guaranteed the 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 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)]]
▲The Amadios, whose son carried on business as a builder, guaranteed the 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 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)]] <ref>{{cite web|title=Murdoch eLaw|url=https://elaw.murdoch.edu.au/archives/issues/2006/1/eLaw_Sykes_13_2006_04.pdf}}</ref>. With unconscionable conduct having no definition at a legislative level (other than conduct lacking in goodfaith) it is largely up to the presiding judicial member to determine as to whether compliance is efficient on a statuory basis <ref>{{cite web|title=Commercial Bank of Australia Limited v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447|url=http://ceds.vu.edu.au/buslaw/commerci.htm}}</ref> .
It was held by the [[High Court of Australia]]) in 3-1 majority that, in all the circumstances, it was unconscionable for the bank to rely on the guarantee. Notable circumstances taken into the account by the court include:
| |||