“Unconscionability is a concept which requires a high level of moral obloquy.”
Equity is that part in the law that moderates the harshness of common law and statute and because of this persons seeking assistance from an unconscionable transaction have been able to find relief through equity. Although equity only appears in the most repugnant of situations, it comes as in disbelief, that the courts would consider a newer level of standard for unconscionability. The following paper considers the effect of the statement made and the ramifications of the statement through equity.
Equity has a major role through the Australian legal system, with its ability to control abhorrent situations inclusive of cases where unconscionable conduct is apparent. However in a recent case of the ACCC v Zanok Technologies Pty Ltd it was held that a high level of moral obloquy is needed to prove unconscionable conduct. This case has created the question of whether a ‘high moral obloquy’ creates a liability that goes outside the scope of unconscionability, specifically in cases dealt with in equity.
There are two instances where unconscionability comes into question by reference to cases bought forward under statute. The first being that under section 20 and the next being under section 21 both from the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). To understand these sections, both equity and the scope of unconscionability need to be examined.
(a) Moral Obloquy
To begin with, the