|
Unconscionable
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] |
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 ... [...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 . Hel ... [...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] |
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] |
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 defenda ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Forum Selection Clause
A forum selection clause (sometimes called a dispute resolution clause, choice of court clause, jurisdiction clause or an arbitration clause, depending upon its form) in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any disputes relating to that contract will be resolved in a specific forum. They usually operate in conjunction with a choice of law clause which determines the proper law of the relevant contract. There are three principal types of clause: * that all disputes must be litigated in a particular court in a jurisdiction agreed upon by the parties; * that disputes must be resolved pursuant to a dispute resolution process, such as mediation, arbitration, or a hearing before a special referee or expert determination; or * the clause might refer to a combination, requiring a specific process to be carried out in a specific location, and if that process fails to resolve the issue, for litigation to be conducted in a particular court. A simpl ... [...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] |
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] |
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] |
Misrepresentation
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading '' R v Kylsant'' 931/ref> statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well (or instead of rescission). The law of misrepresentation is an amalgam of contract and tort; and its sources are common law, equity and statute. In England and Wales, the common law was amended by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The general principle of misrepresentation has been adopted by the United States and other former British colonies, e.g. India. Representation and contract terms A "representation" is a pre-contractual statement made during negotiations. If a representation has been incorporated into the contract as a term, then the normal remedies for breach of contract apply. Factors that determine whether or not a representation has beco ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Superior Knowledge Doctrine
Superior knowledge doctrine is a principle in United States contract law. The doctrine states that the government must disclose to a contractor otherwise unavailable information that is vital to contract performance. "The Helene Curtis doctrine of superior knowledge is now firmly embedded in the jurisprudence of government contracts." In order to recover under the superior knowledge doctrine, a contractor must prove each of the following elements: # The contractor undertook to perform the contract without vital knowledge of a fact directly affecting performance, cost, or duration of the contract. # The government was aware that the contractor had no knowledge of the information, and that the contractor had no reason to attempt to obtain this information. # A contract specification that the government supplied to the contractor misled the contractor, or failed to put the contractor on notice to inquire more. # The government failed to provide the relevant information. History The c ... [...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 f ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
