Essay on MLC707 Assignment T3 2014

Words: 1853
Pages: 8

MLC707 Commercial and Corporations Law
Trimester 3, 2014
Research Assignment (15%)

Points to note:
 Students have been shown in class on how to solve a law problem assignment – ie, essay or report format is expected, with clear introduction outlining the legal issues to be discussed at the onset, followed by clear statements of relevant principles and demonstration of how those legal principles are applicable to the given facts.
 Some students will merely refer to the principles in Amadio case to support their arguments in their case … which is okay
 But the better students are those who would be able to recognise and point out which bits of the facts are similar to those in Amadio case and to explain how and why the
…show more content…
The position under ACL for unconscionable conduct is similar. … Section 20 of the ACL prohibits many forms of unconscionable conduct and it applies to both corporation and natural person. Section 20 states: “A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is unconscionable within the meaning of the unwritten law …” (meaning within the equitable principles of unconscionability available from time to time, for example as set out in Amadio). In addition, s.21 provides a further list of what constitutes “unconscionable conduct” that is against the law, such as to take into account:
 the bargaining power between the supplier and consumer;
 whether the consumer has understood the legal effects and the importance of those documents;
 whether there was any undue influence or pressure placed on the consumer;
Based on the same set of facts as above under common law, one may also note that
EW Bank has also contravened ss.20 and 21 of the ACL when Bruno failed to explain to Alan and Bridget the significance of the mortgage and guarantee documents; Bruno had simply given those documents for Alan and Bridget to sign without giving them time to hold back and think it through and without telling them in proper terms to seek independent legal advice, thus effectively putting pressure on them to sign the documents on the spot. These behaviours clearly constitute a breach of ss.20 and 21.