Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio: Difference between revisions

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 statutory basis.<ref>{{cite web|title=Commercial Bank of Australia LimitedLtd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20120503010606/http://ceds.vu.edu.au/buslaw/commerci.htm}}</ref>