particular case has a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by…
The U.C.C. § 2-302 (1964) enacted the moral sense of the community into the law of commercial transactions. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) There was no fraud involved in this case. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) [HN6] U.C.C. § 2-302 explains that the meaningfulness of choice essentials to the making of a contract can be negated by a gross inequality of bargaining power. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969) Since the salesman was aware of the plaintiff’s limited financial funds, and coerced them into signing the agreement, then that agreement is deemed unconscionable under this law. Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1969)…
The classic authority on the circumstances in which third parties will be held accountable for their involvement in a breach of trust or fiduciary duty is the English case of Barnes v Addy. It was in this case that Lord Selbourne LC articulated the much cited and analysed statement of principle that has come to form the modern law:…
"What then is the principle to guide the courts in determining whether to grant Mareva relief in a case such as the present where the activities of third parties are the object sought to be restrained? In our opinion such an order may, and we emphasise the word “may”, be appropriate, assuming the existence…
Undue influence is distinguishable from duress,[6] in that undue influence is a more subtle domination of the grantor's will, especially by one who stands in a relation of confidence with the grantor.[7]…
“[On one view of proprietary estoppel] ‘unconscionaibility has no independent existence for it is defined purely in terms of three factual requirements. The corollary is, of course, that unconscionability exists by definition whenever there is an assurance, reliance and detriment, because non-performance of the assurance after the detriment will always be unconscionable. Such a view is at odds with those who view unconscionability as at the heart of the doctrine – in the sense of providing its underlying rationale – because, quite simply, it denies the concept of any discernable meaning.”…
It appears that today, the emphasis appears to have shifted away from the notion of coercion of the will of the plaintiff to the lack of legitimacy in the pressure or compulsion (Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Bank Corporation).…
suspicious, but now it's to late, Macbeth had gone crazy as well as Lady Macbeth.…
Two jurisdictions of law exist in Australia: equity and common law. ‘Equity is ‘the body of law developed by the Court of Chancery in England before 1873. Its justification was that it corrected, supplemented and amended the common law. It softened and modified many of the injustices at common law, and provided remedies where, at law, they were either inadequate or non-existent.’[1] Common law is ‘the unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England as developed by judicial precedence, interpretation, expansion and modification.’[2] The complete fusion of these jurisdictions has not yet occurred. The two “streams” of jurisdiction have merged in some areas as the law has developed, but are technically still separate. This essay will prove this claim using the equitable doctrines of estoppel and fiduciary obligations and will then discuss remedies.…
We want our graduates to be aware of and have respect for self and others; to be able to work with others as a leader and a team player; to have a sense of connectedness with others and country; and to have a sense of mutual obligation. Our graduates should be informed and active participants in moving society towards sustainability.…
- Assignment presentation - introducing the area of law, outlining the relevant legal principles and using case law in support of your discussion…
This essay will critically discuss the effect of the [courts’] overbroad view in reading of the element of appropriation which led to the offence of theft being interpreted as an extraordinarily wide one.…
[Judicial review of administrative action has traditionally had a procedural focus. This means that courts examine the procedure by which a decision is made, rather than the decision itself. A denial of natural justice is no exception to review — a person dissatisfied with an administrative decision has long been able to complain about the fairness of the decision-making process but not the fairness of the decision itself. English law has recently developed a doctrine of ‘substantive unfairness’ by which an expectation about the outcome of a decision-making process can be protected by the courts in a strong sense. The strength of the protection given under this new doctrine seems to blur the distinction between process and outcomes, which leads judicial review in a radical new direction. This article explains the English doctrine of substantive unfairness and considers whether it can and should be adopted in Australia.]…
The doctrine of legitimate expectation operates as a control over the exercise of discretionary powers conferred upon a public authority. The typical reason why discretionary powers are conferred upon a public authority is to ensure that they are exercised having due regard to the particular circumstances of individual cases coming before the decision-maker – ie in circumstances where Parliament was not confident at the time of passing legislation in predicting all circumstances and how individual cases should be resolved. It is often difficult to tell in advance of concrete situations arising precisely how an authority should act; and that may be as true for the authority as for Parliament itself. This reasoning is inherent in the rule forbidding a public authority which has a discretion and adopts a policy as to its exercise from following that policy without having due regard to the specific facts of the particular case: British Oxygen [1971] AC 610.…
1 Public Interest Litigation is a good thing when it is used to enforce the rights of the disadvantaged. But it has now been diluted to interfere with the power of the government to take decisions on a range of policy matters…