不合理交易公平原则的法典化尝试

D. Svantesson
{"title":"不合理交易公平原则的法典化尝试","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
An Attempt at Codifying the Equitable Doctrine of Unconscionable Dealings
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信