超越无意识探索新的不正当行为禁令

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
Nicholas J. Felstead
{"title":"超越无意识探索新的不正当行为禁令","authors":"Nicholas J. Felstead","doi":"10.53637/ibyx4580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand conducted a wholesale review of the Australian Consumer Law in 2017. Despite calls for the introduction of an ‘unfair conduct’ prohibition, the review found that a change to the current prohibition on ‘unconscionable conduct’ was unnecessary in light of the statutory prohibition evolving from its equitable origins. The recent High Court decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1 has stifled this development and realigned statutory unconscionability with the restrictive equitable doctrine. In light of curial and extra- curial comments from senior members of the judiciary, regulators and commentators, it is appropriate to reconsider the merits of a prohibition on unfair conduct. This article argues that this reform will better promote community understanding, lead to greater certainty in commerce and fulfil the role of a ‘safety net’ provision in the Australian Consumer Law.","PeriodicalId":45951,"journal":{"name":"UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES LAW JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond Unconscionability Exploring the Case for a New Prohibition on Unfair Conduct\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas J. Felstead\",\"doi\":\"10.53637/ibyx4580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand conducted a wholesale review of the Australian Consumer Law in 2017. Despite calls for the introduction of an ‘unfair conduct’ prohibition, the review found that a change to the current prohibition on ‘unconscionable conduct’ was unnecessary in light of the statutory prohibition evolving from its equitable origins. The recent High Court decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1 has stifled this development and realigned statutory unconscionability with the restrictive equitable doctrine. In light of curial and extra- curial comments from senior members of the judiciary, regulators and commentators, it is appropriate to reconsider the merits of a prohibition on unfair conduct. This article argues that this reform will better promote community understanding, lead to greater certainty in commerce and fulfil the role of a ‘safety net’ provision in the Australian Consumer Law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES LAW JOURNAL\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES LAW JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53637/ibyx4580\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES LAW JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53637/ibyx4580","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2017年,澳大利亚和新西兰消费者事务部对《澳大利亚消费者法》进行了全面审查。尽管有人呼吁引入“不公平行为”禁令,但审查发现,鉴于法定禁令从公平起源演变而来,没有必要改变目前对“不合理行为”的禁令。高等法院最近在澳大利亚证券和投资委员会诉Kobelt(2019)267 CLR 1案中的裁决扼杀了这一发展,并将法定不合情理与限制性公平原则重新调整。根据司法机构高级成员、监管机构和评论员的法庭和法庭外意见,重新考虑禁止不公平行为的好处是合适的。本文认为,这项改革将更好地促进社区理解,提高商业的确定性,并发挥《澳大利亚消费者法》中“安全网”条款的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond Unconscionability Exploring the Case for a New Prohibition on Unfair Conduct
Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand conducted a wholesale review of the Australian Consumer Law in 2017. Despite calls for the introduction of an ‘unfair conduct’ prohibition, the review found that a change to the current prohibition on ‘unconscionable conduct’ was unnecessary in light of the statutory prohibition evolving from its equitable origins. The recent High Court decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1 has stifled this development and realigned statutory unconscionability with the restrictive equitable doctrine. In light of curial and extra- curial comments from senior members of the judiciary, regulators and commentators, it is appropriate to reconsider the merits of a prohibition on unfair conduct. This article argues that this reform will better promote community understanding, lead to greater certainty in commerce and fulfil the role of a ‘safety net’ provision in the Australian Consumer Law.
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
25
×
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