Doctrine of Unconscionability: Its Development and Possibilities

contracts do not supply an independent argument for the fairness of enforcing their terms…a hyp othetical contract is not simply a pale form of an actual contract; it is no contract at al.” 5 In the realm of social contract theory, ‘contractual metaphors’ are used to facilitate the mind’s digestion of otherwise abstract intelectual material. They are not to be understood as representing enforceable legal obligations. They are, however, quite useful in conceptualizing discussions vis -a-vis social justice.

breach of express and implied contracts based on the theory of promoter liability. The courts

In this essay, the focus is on whether it is morally objectionable for a person to recover damages from another’s breach of contract that results in a better financial position than they would have been if the breach had not occurred. This is because in deciding whether to preserve the principle in Clark, law-makers would place high regard on the analysis of Clark’s normative outcome. The following points are the key arguments against awarding a sum to a higher pecuniary advantage??? Such as Clark, which can be subsequently rebutted in this analysis with “normative” research.

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties

Lord Denning holds the opinion that “…it is a mistake to think that all contracts can be analyzed into the form of offer and acceptance…” He gives his support of the statement above and echoes these sentiments in the case of Butler v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979). He believes that the “…better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

The doctrine of frustration is another piecemeal solution that enables fairer performance of contracts. Frustration acknowledges that it is unjust to tie a party’s obligations entirely to the contract. Frustration is invoked to rectify certain unfair situations where unforeseen contingencies have occurred. This doctrine provides for acts beyond the control of either party, which renders performance impossible. As Lord Bingham stated, the doctrine of frustration “was to give effect to the demands of justice, to achieve a just and reasonable result, to do what was reasonable and fair, as an expedient to escape from injustice where such would result from enforcement of a contract in its literal terms after a significant change in circumstances.” Lord Simon in Panalpina stresses this point that frustration was developed “as an expedient to escape from injustice”. However one main limitation of the doctrine is the requirement of foreseeability of the frustrating event. Frustration is thus rarely used and will only be applied where a change to the “foundation of the contract” has destroyed the “basis of the contract.” The problem with the doctrine of frustration as piecemeal solution is that some events are inevitably impossible to predict. Therefore a good faith

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

It was this mergence that saw Lord Mansfield becoming known as ‘the founder of commercial law within this country [United Kingdom]’, due to his ability to harmonise ‘commercial custom and the common law ...with an almost complete understanding of the commercial community, and the fundamental principles of the old law and that that marriage of idea proved acceptable to both merchants and lawyers.’ At this stage, the principle of caveat emptor was utilised as a guiding principle for the courts, devised namely in response to the manner in which business at this time was undertaken. This was in response to the manner in which business was conducted, namely in small fairs with small quantities of goods being bought and sold, buyers were afforded the opportunity to inspect the goods and use their own knowledge and skill to determine whether or not to purchase them. As such, it was the buyer’s responsibility to ensure that due diligence was observed at the time of purchase. Failing to inspect the goods resulted in the cost would be lost if the goods purchased were not what was wanted. In this context protection for buyers was to a certain extent non-existent. The only way in which a seller could be held liable was in circumstances where a written warranty was issued or if the case was considered to be one of false affirmation.

The court of appeal in Akindele briefly referred to a new approach to the personal liability of a recipient known as the unjust enrichment approach. This approach does not disregard the issue of dishonesty entirely, rather it restricts the issue of dishonesty to the application of the change of position defence in that only an innocent recipient can avail themselves of this defence .

Conceptually, reasonable expectations of honest men and sanctity of contract are not in conflict. Indeed, they often point to the same direction – it is the reasonable expectation of an honest man that an agreement should be executed. Although it is observed that the two themes usually work side by side, this essay argues that in regards to the rules of acceptance of unilateral contracts, the English courts place more emphasis on reasonable expectations when making decisions.