|
Unconscionability
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. Typically, an ''unconscionable'' contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract. Overview Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made, such as their bargaining power, age, and mental capacity. Other issues might include lack of choice, superior knowledge, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the bargaining process. Unconscionable condu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contract Law
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations between them. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission. Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle that agreements must be honoured. Contract law, like other areas of private law, varies between jurisdictions. The various systems of contract law can broadly be split between common law jurisdictions, civil law jurisdictions, and mixed law jurisdictions which combine elements of both common and civil law. Common law jurisdictions typically require contracts to include consideration in order to be valid, whereas civil and most mixed law jurisdictions solely require a meeting of the min ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Uber Technologies Inc V Heller
''Uber Technologies Inc v Heller'', 2020 SCC 16, is a 2020 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held 8–1 that an arbitration clause in a contract the plaintiff David Heller had signed with Uber was unconscionable, and hence unenforceable. As a result, it held that Heller's proposed class action lawsuit against Uber could go forward. Facts David Heller, an Uber Eats driver, claimed the right to be paid the minimum wage of CA$14 an hour, overtime and vacation pay under Ontario's Employment Standards Act along with other colleagues in a class action. To have these rights, Heller and others needed to be classified as "employees". Heller had a standard form contract with Uber, which stated that he was an independent contractor, and that any dispute needed to go to arbitration in the Netherlands, according to the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. This would have cost around US$14,500. The claims of the class as a whole totalled approximately . Heller argued ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Uber V Heller
''Uber Technologies Inc v Heller'', 2020 SCC 16, is a 2020 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held 8–1 that an arbitration clause in a contract the plaintiff David Heller had signed with Uber was unconscionable, and hence unenforceable. As a result, it held that Heller's proposed class action lawsuit against Uber could go forward. Facts David Heller, an Uber Eats driver, claimed the right to be paid the minimum wage of CA$14 an hour, overtime and vacation pay under Ontario's Employment Standards Act along with other colleagues in a class action. To have these rights, Heller and others needed to be classified as "employees". Heller had a standard form contract with Uber, which stated that he was an independent contractor, and that any dispute needed to go to arbitration in the Netherlands, according to the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. This would have cost around US$14,500. The claims of the class as a whole totalled approximately . Heller argue ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Commercial Bank Of Australia Ltd V Amadio
''Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio'',. is a seminal case in Australian contract law and equity, in which the High Court held that unconscionable dealing due to a lack of knowledge or education and the consequent imbalance in bargaining power could lead to a transaction being set aside. The case is a formative case for the defence of unconscionability, a precursor to statutory unconscionability. Background Facts Giovani and Cesira Amadio, whose son, Vincenzo, carried on business as a builder, guaranteed 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 defence, the Amadios asserted that the guarantee was unenforceable because it was unconscionable. They were held to be at a "special disadvantage" as an equitable doctrine in Equity (law) ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contract Of Adhesion
A standard form contract (sometimes referred to as a ''contract of adhesion,'' a ''leonine contract'', a ''take-it-or-leave-it contract'', or a '' boilerplate contract'') is a contract between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position. While these types of contracts are not illegal ''per se'', there exists a potential for unconscionability. In addition, in the event of an ambiguity, such ambiguity will be resolved ''contra proferentem'', i.e. against the party drafting the contract language. Theoretical issues There is much debate on a theoretical level whether, and to what extent, courts should enforce standard form contracts. On one hand, they undeniably fulfill an important role of promoting economic efficiency. Standard form contracting reduces transaction costs substantially by avoiding the nee ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Standard Form Contract
A standard form contract (sometimes referred to as a ''contract of adhesion,'' a ''leonine contract'', a ''take-it-or-leave-it contract'', or a '' boilerplate contract'') is a contract between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position. While these types of contracts are not illegal ''per se'', there exists a potential for unconscionability. In addition, in the event of an ambiguity, such ambiguity will be resolved ''contra proferentem'', i.e. against the party drafting the contract language. Theoretical issues There is much debate on a theoretical level whether, and to what extent, courts should enforce standard form contracts. On one hand, they undeniably fulfill an important role of promoting economic efficiency. Standard form contracting reduces transaction costs substantially by avoiding the nee ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Arbitration
Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that resolves disputes outside the judiciary courts. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons (the 'arbitrators', 'arbiters' or 'arbitral tribunal'), which renders the 'arbitration award'. An arbitration decision or award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts, unless all parties stipulate that the arbitration process and decision are non-binding. Arbitration is often used for the resolution of commercial disputes, particularly in the context of international commercial transactions. In certain countries such as the United States, arbitration is also frequently employed in consumer and employment matters, where arbitration may be mandated by the terms of employment or commercial contracts and may include a waiver of the right to bring a class action claim. Mandatory consumer and employment arbitration should be distinguished from consensual arbitration, particularly commercial ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Choice Of Court
Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states (as in the US), or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort, or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Dépeçage is an issue within choice of law. Sequence of events in conflict cases in Common Law jurisdictions #Jurisdiction. The court selected by the plaintiff must decide both whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case and, if it has, whether another forum is more suitable (the ''forum non conveniens'' issue relates to the problem of forum shopping) for the disposition of the case. Naturally, a plaintiff with appropriate knowledge and finance will alwa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Choice Of Law
Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states (as in the US), or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort, or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Dépeçage is an issue within choice of law. Sequence of events in conflict cases in Common Law jurisdictions #Jurisdiction. The court selected by the plaintiff must decide both whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case and, if it has, whether another forum is more suitable (the ''forum non conveniens'' issue relates to the problem of forum shopping) for the disposition of the case. Naturally, a plaintiff with appropriate knowledge and finance will alwa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Australian Competition And Consumer Commission V CG Berbatis Holders Pty Ltd
Australian(s) may refer to: Australia * Australia, a country * Australians, citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia ** European Australians ** Anglo-Celtic Australians, Australians descended principally from British colonists ** Aboriginal Australians, indigenous peoples of Australia as identified and defined within Australian law * Australia (continent) ** Indigenous Australians * Australian English, the dialect of the English language spoken in Australia * Australian Aboriginal languages * ''The Australian'', a newspaper * Australiana, things of Australian origins Other uses * Australian (horse), a racehorse * Australian, British Columbia, an unincorporated community in Canada See also * The Australian (other) * Australia (other) * * * Austrian (other) Austrian may refer to: * Austrians, someone from Austria or of Austrian descent ** Someone who is considered an Austrian citizen, see Austrian nationality law * Austrian German dialect * Someth ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Commonwealth V Verwayen
''Commonwealth v Verwayen'', also known as the ''Voyager case'',. is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. This c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Louth V Diprose
''Louth v Diprose'', is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which unconscionable conduct is considered. Facts Solicitor Louis Donald Diprose (the plaintiff/respondent) was infatuated with Carol Mary Louth (the defendant/appellant), whom he had met in Launceston, Tasmania in 1981. He showered her with gifts and, at one time, proposed to her; she, however, refused. Subsequently in 1985 the defendant informed the plaintiff that she was depressed and was going to be evicted and, if this happened, she would commit suicide (this was largely untrue). In response, the plaintiff agreed to buy her a house and, at her insistence, put it in her name. In 1988 when their relationship deteriorated, the plaintiff asked the defendant to transfer the house into his name. She refused and he brought proceedings seeking to recover the house. At the trial in the Supreme Court of South Australia, the court of first instance, the plaintiff won, with King CJ holding that for the defendan ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
