The Journals of the Commercial Association - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss about the The Journals of the Commercial Association. Answer: Introduction The fact of the case is Solicitor Louis Diprose is the plaintiff and Carol Mary Louth is the defendant. The plaintiff was twice divorced person who became friends with the deafened in Tasmania and had intercourse on two occasions. When plaintiff proposed to defendant, he was got rejected and started to live with his three children in Adelaide. Later the defendant has told to him that she was in depression and wants to commit suicide. She was facing some financial problems and living with her sisters soon-to-be-ex husband where she might be asked to leave the house. However, plaintiff has brought the house for the defendant for $58,000 and started a relationship. After three years when the defendant wants to end the relationship, plaintiff has asked to transfer the house to him but she refused and plaintiff brought a legal case against her. Now according to the fact of the case, the issue has been found that whether the house has given to the defendant as a gift or not? If the house was given as a gift, then what will be the result of the unconscionable conduct? Court OutCome The unconscionable conduct defined in the contract law where the law of trust is enforceable based on the obligations, which are unfairly exploiting the unequal power of the consenting parties. According to the fact of the unconscionability, it makes the conflict with the inequality of bargain power. Sometimes due to some area of law, it could depend on the facts of duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness (Goldberger, 2016). Therefore, when the unconscionability arises in any case, it caused due to someones bargain on the process of duress or the undue influence or someone will become exploited. In that moment the court, become unconscionable at the time of the enforcement of the law in the case. In the case of Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy 1975 is one of the case where the court has accepted the term of inequality of bargaining power which accepted the unconscionability due to the doctrine of undue influence. Duress is describe in the law of doctrine which use as law defense when a person is committing any offence of force r threatened to another person causes harm. In the contract law, duress involve with illegitimate threats. Therefore, when duress is claimed it must be in the nature of threats against of the terms of the contract. The treat is always illegitimate because it involves with unlawful acts where breaking or terminate the terms of the contract by knowing the non-payment might be pushed someone out of the business. The duress could be physical threats or economic duress. According to the terms of consideration, it must not make any conflict with the terms of contract. Role of the Relevant Court in The Case This is the one of the significant case of Australian Contract Law where the High Court of Australia has considered it as unconscionable conduct. The court has suspected and detailed to the defendant that at the time of transferring the house, plaintiff has put the conducts of unconscionability (Goldberger, 2016). At the time of the formation of contract, plaintiff was entitled to the land but the placed in the name of the defendant. Justice King has stated in this case that the defendant has put pressures on him, which caused unconscionable conducts. Due to in the condition of depression, the improvident purchase of the house for defendant by the plaintiff was became explicable only as because he was emotionally depends and influenced by her. At the time of the formation of the contract, defendant has conducted that she will suicide, which put pressures and emotional situation for the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants conduct was unconscionable. It is also stated that due to the unconscionable conducts, it could be calculated to induce and actually inducing an improvident transaction conferring a benefit upon her. It is against of the nature of the legal contract. In that moment the court, become unconscionable at the time of the enforcement of the law in the case. The trial was dismissed. According to the fact of the case, it can be concluded that it is become the unconscionable conducts and the land is transferred to the plaintiff. Reference Brody, G., Temple, K. (2016). Unfair but not illegal: Are Australia's consumer protection laws allowing predatory businesses to flourish?. Alternative Law Journal, 41(3), 169-173. Goldberger, J. (2016). Unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms. Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia, 30(2), 17. Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy 1975 QB 326 Louth v Diprose High Court of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 621; [1992] HCA 61 Newell, C. (2016). What to do in a multiple offer scenario. REIQ Journal, (Dec 2016-Jan 2017), 36.