Consumer Protection Law and Unconscionability

This assignment delves into the legal doctrine of unconscionability within the context of consumer protection. It requires a critical analysis of the doctrine's application in various scenarios, drawing upon prominent case law like *Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay* and *Suisse Atlantique Société d’ Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale*. The assignment also incorporates academic perspectives from scholars such as Beh, Brody & Temple, Browne & Biksacky, D'agostino, Friedman, Hedlund, Hudson, Leeming, Marrow & Penn, Murray Jr, Nehf, Rajapakse & Gardner, Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay, Serpell, Sherborne, Swain, Webb, and Young.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Unconscionability is a term under the contract law which defines the doctrine of contract.
The unconscionability terms are always applicable extremely unjust way. Under this term of
contact, both the parties are belongs to the superior bargaining power which are related to the
good conscience. When the parties of the agreement not agrees with the terms of
unconscionability, then the contract become unenforceable. In most of the cases, the conduct in
the unconscionable contract never allowed the benefits because the consideration was always
found with lack of knowledge or inadequate of the enforcement (Beh 2015).
It determines the unconscionability when the contract was related with bargaining power,
mental capacity and age. It may also include superior knowledge, lack of choice and other
obligations which can be formed due to the acts of fraud and deceit. Sometimes, due to the fact
of misrepresentation it may deprive someone who belongs from valuable possession. Therefore,
when one party of the contract takes advantages of another due to the unconscionable
approaches, then the action will be treated as the civil action of deceit criminal or fraud (Browne
and Biksacky 2013).
The person who is the perpetrator has never holds the right where he or she can get
benefit according to the consideration in the contract. It is applicable only when the terms are
found enforceable in the contract. However, in the unconscionability, the defense can be
provided to the offender when it deals with the fairness of the contract. Therefore, the court
must look for the facts where the contract becomes unconscionable due to the presence of gross
inequity of bargaining power (Beh 2015). In such consequences, the contract will become
unreasonable favorable towards the stronger party according to the claim of unconscionable
contract.

2BUSINESS LAW
When the contract was formed, the unconscionable contract must be included the
bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties. The misrepresentation of f\acts must
be established while the identification of such contract. However, in this contract, the terms are
cannot be changed after the formation. While the judgment, the jury members never participate
in the process. The judge will provide the judgment and also identify the remedies according to
the flexibility of the contract (Browne and Biksacky 2013).
The Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd vs. Amadio is one of the famous cases of
Australia, where the unconscionability has been introduced for the first time. In this case, an Old
Italian couple’s son has guaranteed his parents’ for mortgage their property. When their son has
failed in the business, the Commercial bank has claimed the property in exchange of the loan.
However, the court has found in this case the contract was unconscionable. The bank manager
had the knowledge about the Amadios that they are old and not have knowledge about English
language. The bank also found to act fraud with them that there is no limit of liability as per the
terms of guarantee. The court has been stated that the bank manager has knowledge about
disabilities of the parties and formed the contract of mortgage. There are lack of advanced age,
lack of fluency, lack of business acumen and the financial condition of the builder’s son.
The facts of the unequal bargaining are mostly established in the unconscionable contract
when the unreasonable facts are performed by one party to another party. In such fact, one party
always aware about the concept that other party has lack of knowledge to understand the
consequences of the terms of the contract.
In the case of Suisse Atlantique Société d’ Armement Maritime SA v NV
Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale, the court has been introduced the fact of Doctrine of Inequality

3BUSINESS LAW
of Bargaining Power. The case has been described the concept of bargaining power which
mainly occurs when the party look through the agreement where he might understand some facts
and some of the facts they missed. The freedom of contract defined the term of bargaining.
Inequality of bargaining is another term where one party will bargain in the agreement for better
alternative opportunities (Browne and Biksacky 2013). In this process, the parties who are using
the alternative opportunities will have more power and other party will use the power as well at
the formation of the contract. While in this contract, the bargaining power is unequal to the idea
of Inequality of bargain power. In this bargaining power, the justification of the implication of
power is one of the important parts which form the contract directly through law or non-
enforcement of a contract by the courts.
Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay is another case of unconscionable
contract` in this case one of the music companies has comes under a contractual term which is
related with the restraints of trade in a standard form of contract with a young songwriter. In
related with this case, the court has been stated that the contract was made freely by the parties as
per the equal terms or moulded under the pressure of negotiation. However, no evidence has
been found where the contract was fitted with such description. Negotiation is the process where
the bargaining process can be use according to the terms of the contract. The unequal bargain
helps to demonstrate the unconscionability in the contract which are mostly relayed with the
transactions of debts in the bank guarantees (Hedlund 2016).
It is necessary to describe the facts of the contractual terms. If it has been found that the
contract was formed by one party and it will unenforceable against the person. However, it is
only applicable when the party is minor or the person with mental difficulties. It is used for

4BUSINESS LAW
preventing to take advantages by the aggrieved party from the innocent party due to the lack of
ability.
In the unonscionable contract, it has identified the terms where it defies the unfairness of
the agreement. When the unfairness of the contract has been applied in the unequal bargaining
power from side by side, it is necessary to understand the facts of the agreement. It also directly
effects on the unfair terms which failed to represent the unequal bargaining power between the
parties. However, it has been found that the contract has become unconscionable, the parties can
avoid the contract and rework on the issues. In the unconscionable contract, it is necessary to
establish the terms of illegal or frauds. The damages may not be awarded in the in such contracts
for not able to establishment of the contract.
In the Inequality of bargaining power, most of the case, the banks are identified as
aggrieved party who get involved with such bargaining power. After the formation of the
contract, the agreement was given pre-drafted by one of the strongest parties who will accept the
terms. Another party will accept the terms without the opportunities or time which was changed
by their own choice. In the bargaining position, one party will always accept the mentioned
terms which are found useful them. In most of the cases, it will become useful for the parties
who tried to execute or set the limits of the liabilities without taking care of the interest of the
other side. Here, the weaker party is suffered the most at the negotiation terms (Hedlund 2016).
However, banks are the found the strongest parties in the Inequality of the bargaining power. At
the time of taking any property for mortgage process, the parties are provided with their exclude
or limit his liabilities for not caring the interest of the other side of the interest. Now the other
party when takes the advantages of the mortgage or lease property, the bank provides with loans

5BUSINESS LAW
and the authority of the banks keeps the knowledge about the parties who are entering into the
contract.
In the use of Standard condition and terms, it helps to established the facts where the
consumers enter into the contract. Most of the business people entered into such contracts which
consisted with the basis of one person’s standard form of agreement or based on a standard form
of document. In the process of the contractual terms, it includes the order form, price list or
catalogue, confirmation of the order, put forward by one party and incorporated by reference the
standard terms and conditions of the trade associations.
While in the bargain power of the contract mostly presents in between two parties, the
legislatures and court both have evolved in the certain rules for the protection of interest of the
weaker party. However, in the absence of the specific legislation, it is the duty of the court to
interfere with standard form of contracts which unequal used to provide the evidence of unequal
bargaining power. The courts are found to provide reliefs in those cases where the weaker party
has faced with the burdened with unfair, unjust, unconscionable, unconstitutional and oppressive
obligations under a standard form of contract. It is not recognized as a form of procedural
unconscionability but the most of the common forms found unconscionability employed by the
courts. Court sometimes tried to identify bargaining power which is based on the evidence
where the buyer is a small company or individual and seller is a large company. It can become
the result of a specific monopoly.
Under a contract, parties can protect them by own against enforcement of an
unconscionable provision in a contract. However, it never works in; obtain damages which are
subjected to the unconscionable contracts. According to the terms of the contract, the parties

6BUSINESS LAW
cannot seek advantages or resolution in relation with a unconscionable contract. Therefore, the
doctrine of such contract allowed the court for deny the enforceability of the contract to develop
on the terms of a contract for alleviate the unconscionable portions. Therefore, the doctrine of the
contract helps the parties to form the contract fairly and freely. The opposite party in the
unconscionable contract always suggests finding the contract with the term with unfair where
court can change or modify the overall appropriate by courts, rework and reformation on the
single terms of contract is the least disruptive method of correction (Hedlund 2016).
The Financial and Consumer Rights Council (FCRC) is one of the professional
associations in Victoria which works as financial counselor. It helps to provide enough support
and other assistances with different agencies which assist the vulnerable Victorians experiencing
financial difficulty. This organization is mainly works with the government, utilities, debt
collection, banking jobs and other ways to develop the approaches of the financial difficulties for
the vulnerable consumers. In most of the cases, the unfair terms always form it out and confirm
that consumers who are in relation with the unfair practices have rights to enter in to the contract
as per the protection by the Australian Consumer Law. The FCRC make it confirm about the
benefits where it may banned from being included in the contract (Hedlund 2016).
The Financial and Consumer Rights Council (FCRC) has been heighted on the different
segments which are all related with the consumer protection along with the practices related to
the financial concealing. They help the parties or the plaintiffs who want to start a legal
proceedings against the another party or the defendants. In other way, the group also provides the
information and knowledge to the consumers against those unfair contracts, which can be
introduced by the parties without the use of the equal bargain (Beh 2015).

7BUSINESS LAW
In most of the cases, according to circumstances of the low-income earners, it has
transferred into a hardship where the options may not able to confirm the results towards the
detriment of both parties according to the dispute which are remaining unsettled. Therefore, the
business law of Australia has different grounds where courts can relate to unconscionable
conduct of dominant and weaker parties. it also protects the consumer rights against the seller of
such productions. The advocacy process also define those several groups which are related the
security of the rights of weaker party against the strong party.

8BUSINESS LAW
Reference
Beh, H.G., 2015. Curing the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine. Browser Download
This Paper.
Brody, G. and Temple, K., 2016. Unfair but not illegal: Are Australia's consumer protection laws
allowing predatory businesses to flourish?. Alternative Law Journal, 41(3), p.169.
Browne, M.N. and Biksacky, L., 2013. Unconscionability and the contingent assumptions of
contract theory. Mich. St. L. Rev., p.211.
Bryan, M., Degeling, S., Donald, S. and Vann, V., 2016. A Sourcebook on Equity and Trusts in
Australia. Cambridge University Press.
D'agostino, E., 2014. Contracts of adhesion between law and economics: Rethinking the
unconscionability doctrine. Springer.
Friedman, D., 2015. Arbitration Revisited: Preemption of California's Unconscionability
Doctrine after Concepcion. Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y Sidebar, 11, p.21.
Hedlund, R., 2016. Conscience and Unconscionability in English Equity (Doctoral dissertation,
University of York).
Hudson, A., 2016. Conscience as the Organising Concept of Equity. Can. J. Comp. & Contemp.
L., 2, p.261.
Hudson, A., 2016. Principles of Equity and Trusts. Routledge.
Leeming, M., 2016. Equity and Statute: a commentary.

9BUSINESS LAW
Marrow, P.B. and Penn, C.E., 2014. Policing Unfair Arbitration Clauses.
Murray Jr, J.E., 2014. The Judicial Vision of Contract: The Constructed Circle of Assent and
Unconscionability. Duq. L. Rev., 52, p.263.
Nehf, J.P., 2017. The Impact of Mandatory Arbitration on the Common Law Regulation of
Standard Terms in Consumer Contracts.
Rajapakse, P. and Gardner, J., 2014. The Unconscionable Conduct and Consumer Protection in
Subprime Lending in Australia. Banking & Finance Law Review, 29(3), p.485.
Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay [1974] 1 WLR 1308
Serpell, A., 2016. Financial products and services: Consumer rights and remedies. Precedent
(Sydney, NSW), (134), p.4.
Sherborne, A.K.E., 2017. Restitution in the conflict of laws: characterization and choice-of-law
in Australia. Journal of Private International Law, 13(1), pp.1-34.
Suisse Atlantique Société d’ Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale
[1967] 1 AC 36
Swain, W., 2014. Unjust enrichment and the role of legal history in England and Australia.
Webb, E., 2016. Statutory Unconscionability in Australia.
Young, P., 2016. Unconscionability and promissory estoppel. AUSTRALIAN LAW
JOURNAL, 90(12), pp.878-888.