Evaluation of Group Report for HI6027 Business & Corporate Law

Group: ___ GROUP No. ___
Marking Rubric
HI6027 Business & Corporate Law
Evaluation of Group Report
Student ID Name Phone No. Email address
ENE3309
Yoshini De Silva
Siriwardane 0457 492 623 [e-mail]
ENE3352
Dilanka
Panamaldeniya 0402 799 887 [e-mail]
JEE3203 Nalinda T 0479 087 083 [e-mail]
THI3044 Zaya Tserenpiljee 0406 556 395 [e-mail]
ENE3315 Maheshi De Silva 0451 712 807 [e-mail]
Note: Student No 1 will be the Group Leader with the responsibility to submit
assignment via SafeAssign. Please attach this as the cover sheet to your group report.
Word count (maximum 2,000 words for entire report; 1,000 words each for Part A and Part B;
10% +/- of the word count is allowed):
Total word count:_________2000______________
Part A word count: _________1000____________
Part B word count: ___________1000__________
Date Submitted: ____________________________
Date of presentation: (if in-class presentation, specify date; if video presentation; specify date
of uploading and submission of link on Blackboard: ____________________________.

GROUP ASSIGNMENT TOTAL MARKS 20
1. Observes proper report formatting: 12 point
font, 1.5 lines spacing.
/1
2. Identification of relevant legal issues. /2
3. Identification of relevant legal rules and
principles.
/4
4. Application of relevant legal rules and
principles to facts of the problem question.
/4
5. Makes appropriate conclusion based on
analysis of the problem question.
/2
6. References: (minimum of 6 overall; 3 each
for Parts A & B), in-text citation and reference
list.
/2
7. Group Presentation /5
1

Part –A of the assignment
(Part - A question was taken from - Chapter 2 of the recommended text book
(page 314 & 315)
***Please note that the answers for the part – A of the assignment (a,b,c & d) mainly based on
the case of Commercial bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983)***
Part – a
Issues-
The focus of the case was on the issue of unconscionable due to unreasonable of knowledge of
certain documents in relation to bank mortgage that they owned. In the beginning of the fall of
the firm, the bank enforced loan from guarantee in a bid to keep their security. However, the
bank has gone ahead to apprehend son because the bank could arrest guarantee due his
unconscionable. Amadios had only limited understanding of English.
Rules-
This case pertains to the in trade practices act 1974, under the provision on un-conscionable
conduct of trade practices. Section 51AA of the Act allows for the application of common law
terminology when dealing with transactions marred with unconscionable conduct transaction
between a business and consumer. Notably, this trade legislation prohibited a corporation from
dealing with unconscionable conducts (Stern vs McArthur 1998 (25)).
Application-
Unconscionable conduct will make the contract voidable as revealed in the Amadio case as the
bargaining power of the parties involved is affected.
Conclusion-
In the wake of 1983, the courts adopted another common law concept after the Amadio case
which grew unconscionable conduct to include misrepresentation. The strong party will benefit
with the advantages such as difficulties of understanding or lack of knowledge. In considering,
capacity of understanding business trade, limits of English influence, and Amadio has not been
advised about the limits of liability being under guarantee. Eventually, the bank is deemed to be
liable for the actions by Amadio on the basis of misrepresentation.
2

Part - b
Issue- has Amadio followed the instructions, or can the company has an advantage because
Amadio’s breaches his contract?
Rules-
In accordance with Section 21 in the ACL (Australian competition law) “a person should not be
in supplies, good or services commerce connection or business trade with unconscionable
conduct.” Furthermore, section 22 of the ACL entails the principles pertaining to bargain power.
Section 20 touches on general rules about unconscionable conduct.
Application-
Due to the capacity of consumers understanding the transaction in a bargain and the lack of good
faith thereof, the bargain limits are less for company prospective.
Conclusion-
A claim of unconscionable conduct will suffice and be considered by the court if there is a case
of serious misleading terms to the agreement. Unfair and unreasonable terms also result in
unconscionable conduct.
Even though, Amadio has not followed his instructions, it will be absence of integrity in terms of
constitute unconscionable situation. If the court con not apply section 21 or 22, will consider
section 20 which is common law principle of dealing with an unconscionable trade. The High
Court of Australia takes major consideration that advantage Amadio for his lack of fluency in
English and the lack of competency in business. Conversely, this is detrimental to the
commercial bank. The result is that the commercial bank does not convincingly support the case
to counter Amdio’s actions in the contract.
3