An Attempt at Codifying the Equitable Doctrine of Unconscionable Dealings

D. Svantesson
{"title":"An Attempt at Codifying the Equitable Doctrine of Unconscionable Dealings","authors":"D. Svantesson","doi":"10.53300/001c.38924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is written in honour and in memory of my dear colleague the late Professor Denis Ong — a talented, hard-working, and deservedly leading, authority on equity. Here, I seek to articulate a potential ‘codification’ of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings. While I have been advocating a reform-oriented codification of Australia’s contract law, including the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings, for almost 15 years, the ambition of this article is limited to a restatement of lex lata. On my path to that goal, I start by providing a brief overview of the origins of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings. I then proceed to discuss Professor Ong’s view of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings before I engage with the modern key cases on the topic. Having outlined my proposed codification of the equitable doctrine of unconscionability, I then say a few words about the relationship between the equitable doctrine of unconscionability and unconscionability under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), before concluding the article with some final observations.","PeriodicalId":33279,"journal":{"name":"Bond Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bond Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.38924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article is written in honour and in memory of my dear colleague the late Professor Denis Ong — a talented, hard-working, and deservedly leading, authority on equity. Here, I seek to articulate a potential ‘codification’ of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings. While I have been advocating a reform-oriented codification of Australia’s contract law, including the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings, for almost 15 years, the ambition of this article is limited to a restatement of lex lata. On my path to that goal, I start by providing a brief overview of the origins of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings. I then proceed to discuss Professor Ong’s view of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings before I engage with the modern key cases on the topic. Having outlined my proposed codification of the equitable doctrine of unconscionability, I then say a few words about the relationship between the equitable doctrine of unconscionability and unconscionability under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), before concluding the article with some final observations.
不合理交易公平原则的法典化尝试
这篇文章是为了纪念我亲爱的同事、已故的丹尼斯·翁教授而写的,他是一位才华横溢、勤奋工作、当之无愧的公平问题权威。在这里,我试图阐明不合理交易的公平原则的潜在“法典化”。近15年来,我一直主张对澳大利亚合同法进行以改革为导向的编纂,包括对不合理交易的公平原则,但本文的目标仅限于重申现行法。在实现这一目标的道路上,我首先简要概述了关于不合理交易的公平原则的起源。然后,我将继续讨论王教授对不合理交易的公平原则的看法,然后再讨论有关该主题的现代关键案例。在概述了我建议编纂的衡平法上的不合理原则之后,我接着就衡平法上的不合理原则与澳大利亚消费者法(ACL)下的不合理原则之间的关系说几句话,然后用一些最后的观察来结束这篇文章。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信