Business Law
Assignment
Total Words : 1051
Name : Zi Lin ( Emilie )
Student Number : 706479
Teacher’s Name : Jonathan Bowlby
Group : 4
Case1
Issue
Does XZA Bank Pty Ltd have legal right to sell Ji’s house based on the loan contract he signed?
Rules
The case of Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio[1] and Blomley v Ryan[2] demonstrate the bank’s conduct were unconscionable. The court look at 3 main elements to determining whether to activate the doctrine of unconscionability. • Special disadvantage: A person’s ability to look after their own interests is affected. • Knowledge of Special disadvantage : The other party knows or ought to know of the disadvantage. • Taking unfair advantage of special disadvantage: Abuse by one party of its superior bargaining position in its dealings with the other party.[3]
Application
In this case, Ji is an elderly man and has difficulty in understanding English. He has had no business experience himself. The manager of XZA Bank is aware that Ji has no other assets and is dependent on the old age pension for all living expenses then still persuades Ji to sign the mortgage contract immediately without informing Ji of the consequences if he fails to repay the loan. Refer to the case Blomley v Ryan[4], The judger Fullagar J had listed the factors which might give rise to equitable intervention including “ poverty or need of any kind, sickness, age, sex, infirmity of body or mind, drunkenness, illiteracy or lack of education, lack of assistance or explanation where assistance or explanation is necessary. ’ Many of the factors mentioned in Blomley were presented in Ji’s case. Ji is an elderly man and limited grasp of English. Plus the fact that he lacks of assistance and explanation, hence we have enough evidence to believe that Ji is under special disadvantage. The bank manager not only knew that Ji is old and difficulty in understanding English, but also failed to advice him of the
Total Words : 1051
Name : Zi Lin ( Emilie )
Student Number : 706479
Teacher’s Name : Jonathan Bowlby
Group : 4
Case1
Issue
Does XZA Bank Pty Ltd have legal right to sell Ji’s house based on the loan contract he signed?
Rules
The case of Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio[1] and Blomley v Ryan[2] demonstrate the bank’s conduct were unconscionable. The court look at 3 main elements to determining whether to activate the doctrine of unconscionability. • Special disadvantage: A person’s ability to look after their own interests is affected. • Knowledge of Special disadvantage : The other party knows or ought to know of the disadvantage. • Taking unfair advantage of special disadvantage: Abuse by one party of its superior bargaining position in its dealings with the other party.[3]
Application
In this case, Ji is an elderly man and has difficulty in understanding English. He has had no business experience himself. The manager of XZA Bank is aware that Ji has no other assets and is dependent on the old age pension for all living expenses then still persuades Ji to sign the mortgage contract immediately without informing Ji of the consequences if he fails to repay the loan. Refer to the case Blomley v Ryan[4], The judger Fullagar J had listed the factors which might give rise to equitable intervention including “ poverty or need of any kind, sickness, age, sex, infirmity of body or mind, drunkenness, illiteracy or lack of education, lack of assistance or explanation where assistance or explanation is necessary. ’ Many of the factors mentioned in Blomley were presented in Ji’s case. Ji is an elderly man and limited grasp of English. Plus the fact that he lacks of assistance and explanation, hence we have enough evidence to believe that Ji is under special disadvantage. The bank manager not only knew that Ji is old and difficulty in understanding English, but also failed to advice him of the