1284:
only be obtained through transferral. Due to this limitation and recent excellent salmon harvests, licenses were worth around $ 15,000, meaning that the total value of Harry's boat was $ 16,000. Kreutziger first offered Harry a check for $ 2,000, which he returned through his brother. Kreutziger gave him back the cheque several times, assuring Harry that as an
Aboriginal he would easily be able to get another license. Harry finally agreed to sell for $ 4,500, but then Kreutziger unilaterally reduced the price by $ 570, deducting the cost of conversion of the boat license from an "AI" license (available only to Aboriginal peoples) into an "A" license. Harry then applied for another license, but was rejected on the grounds that he had left the fishing industry when he sold the boat. Harry sued to have the sale set aside, but was unsuccessful at trial. The British Columbia Court of Appeals found there was a clear inequality between the parties due to Harry's lack of education and physical handicap, as well as the difference in class, culture, and economic circumstances between the two parties. Kreutziger's actions clearly demonstrated his power; he was very aggressive in the negotiations and was able to unilaterally modify the price for his own benefit. Kreutziger was also unable to demonstrate that the deal was in any way fair, as the price was one-quarter of the true value of the boat and license. The court rescinded the contract because of the unconscionability of the underlying transaction, ruling that the buyer was trying to take advantage of the seller's lack of knowledge of the value of the license, and ordered Kreutziger to return the boat and license to Harry, and Harry to return the payment of $ 3,930 to Kreutziger.
1155:, the Respondent, a solicitor, was infatuated with Louth. He provided her with a multitude of gratuitous gifts and a marriage proposal, which Louth declined. Louth suffered from depression and threatened to commit suicide if she were to become evicted. In response, the Respondent bought her a house and put it in Louth's name. Following a deterioration of the relationship, the Respondent requested Louth to transfer the property in his name, which Louth refused. The Respondent initiated legal proceedings to recover the property, alleging he had suffered a special disability entitling rescission of the contract. Deane J, in the majority, held that Diprose's infatuation placed him in a position of emotional dependence which placed Louth in a position of ascendancy and influence. Louth was found to be aware of the special disability she had deliberately created and exploited it for her benefit, even though Louth articulated her lack of romantic interest in Diprose on numerous occasions.
1210:". The test for unconscionability applied by Canadian courts is to determine whether there was an inequality of bargaining power between the parties to the contract and, if so, whether this inequality resulted in the contract being an "improvident bargain" for the party with lesser bargaining power. The inequality criterion is satisfied where one party is unable to sufficiently protect its interests while negotiating the contract, while the improvidence criterion is satisfied where the contract "unduly advantages the stronger party or unduly disadvantages the more vulnerable". Improvidence must be measured with reference to the time of the contract's formation and involves a contextual assessment of "whether the potential for undue advantage or disadvantage created by the inequality of bargaining power has been realised". It is particularly relevant in the context of
766:
1037:; meaning that, in jurisdictions where juries are employed in civil cases, it is the judge and not the jurors who decide whether to apply the doctrine. Upon finding unconscionability, a court has significant flexibility on how it remedies the situation. It may refuse to enforce the contract against the party unfairly treated on the theory that they were misled, lacked information, or signed under duress or misunderstanding; it may refuse to enforce the offending clause, or take other measures it deems necessary to have a fair outcome and damages are usually not awarded. For instance, in
1139:, in which an elderly Italian migrant couple guaranteed their builder son's business debts to the Commercial Bank. At the time the mortgage was executed, the bank manager was aware of the son's precarious financial position and knew that the Amadios, who did not speak English well, were not so informed, but did nothing to further explain the situation to them or suggest they get independent advice. In addition, the bank did not advise the Amadios that there was no limit on their liability under the guarantee; the Amadios believed their liability was limited to $ 50,000.
1143:
their reliance on their son's disclosure of his finances. A special disability is one which seriously affects the ability of the person subject to it to make sensible decisions of their own best interest. This "disability" was sufficiently evident to the bank, as the stronger party, to make their acceptance of the weaker party's assent to the transaction manifestly unfair. The bank did not ensure that the
Amadios fully understood the nature of the transaction; therefore, the bank's taking advantage of the opportunity that presented itself was unconscionable.
1226:. Where the disadvantaged party understood the improvident terms of the contract, the contract is unconscionable if they were so reliant on the advantaged party that they assented out of perceived necessity; meanwhile, where the disadvantaged party did not understand the improvident terms, "the focus is on whether they have been unduly disadvantaged by the terms they did not understand or appreciate". The intended purpose of the doctrine of unconscionability is "the protection of vulnerable persons in transactions with others".
1396:
however, most challenges to liquidated damages clauses survive legal challenges based on unconscionability. The
Restatement also has a separate provision on unconscionability at §208, "Unconscionable Contract or Term," which broadly allows a court to limit the application of an unconscionable term or contract in order to avoid an unconscionable result. Additionally, the concept as applied to sales of goods is codified in Section 2-302 of the
1375:, in which the defendant, a retail furniture store, sold multiple items to a customer from 1957 to 1962. The extended credit contract was written so that none of the furniture was considered to be purchased until all of it was paid for. When the plaintiff defaulted and failed to make payments on the last item of furniture, the furniture store attempted to repossess all of the furniture sold since 1957, not just the last item. The
42:
1340:, in which a family home was likewise subjected to a second mortgage to secure a loan on the husband's business with Abbey National Bank. The Morgans got into arrears on the loan, and National Westminster Bank, commonly known as "NatWest", offered a rescue package to help the couple save their home, where they would pay off the existing mortgages and give the couple a
1167:
specific performance while the
Defendant sought to set aside the contract. The Court ruled that 'mere drunkenness' is not a defence to resist a contract. However, it stated that where there is knowledge of one party that the other party is seriously inebriated and that party takes advantage of such inebriation, equity will intervene to refuse specific performance.
1096:
for the purchase of necessary goods or services (e.g. food, shelter, means of transportation) to consumers on a "take it or leave it" basis, without giving consumers realistic opportunities to negotiate terms that would benefit their interests. While there is nothing unenforceable or even wrong about
1166:
the
Plaintiff purchased a property from the Defendant at a very low price. During the transaction, the Defendant was of old age and heavily intoxicated which was conspicuous to the Plaintiff. After the transaction, the Defendant refused to perform the transfer of property and so the Plaintiff sought
1088:
Where a seller vastly inflates the price of goods, particularly when this inflation is conducted in a way that conceals from the buyer the total cost for which the buyer will ultimately be liable. A similar example would be severe penalty provisions for failure to pay loan installments promptly that
1028:
For a contract to be unconscionable, it must have been unconscionable at the time it was made; later circumstances that make the contract extremely one-sided are irrelevant. Criteria for determining unconscionability vary between jurisdictions and the question of whether a contract is unconscionable
1395:
clause. Relief for unilateral mistake may be granted if the mistake would render enforcement of the contract unconscionable. The
Restatement considers factors such as: 1) absence of reliance by the promisee; and 2) gross disparity in values exchanged. Despite the indication of these considerations,
1344:
for the purposes of aiding the husband's business. In the limited time the NatWest manager spent alone with Mrs. Morgan, she stated that she did not want to be exposed to any extra risks, as she had no faith in her husband's business ability. The bank manager assured her that the risks were limited
1325:
ruled that since the amount of the loan was already higher than the existing mortgage, Bundy received no direct benefit from the agreement to increase the mortgage amount; that the bank failed to notify him of the true financial condition of his son's business, and that it threatened to call in his
1283:
with a congenital partial hearing defect. A commercial fisherman, he had a grade 5 education and was not widely experienced in business matters. He owned a boat worth only $ 1,000, but it came with a fishing license: since the
British Columbia government had ceased issuing new licenses, one could
1250:
and equivalent legislation in other provinces and territories. However, Uber attempted to invoke an arbitration clause included in its contracts with
Canadian drivers which required that all disputes between Uber and the drivers be resolved by arbitration in the Netherlands. In an 8–1 decision, the
1330:
MR found that the contract was voidable owing to the unequal bargaining position in which Bundy had found himself, in that he had entered into the contract without independent advice and that unfair pressures were exerted by the bank. Essentially, the court ruled that only the bank benefitted from
1326:
son's loan if Bundy did not agree to the increase. Furthermore, since Bundy relied upon Lloyd's for the mortgage and his son's line of credit, the bank-customer relationship was found to have created a fiduciary duty; hence, the bank should have recommended that he seek independent legal advice.
1142:
When the son's business failed, the
Amadios had the contract set aside due to unconscionable dealing by the bank. The court held that the bank manager knew about the "special disability" of Amadios, referring to their advanced age, lack of business acumen, lack of fluency in written English, and
1184:
The stronger party is taking advantage of the fact that the consumer either does not have enough knowledge or understanding of the contract or is incapable of making an independent decision. The trader does not point out that the consumer has avenues in getting help in clearly understanding the
1303:
to express essentially the same idea as unconscionability; which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence, and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe
1069:
refers to the unfairness of terms or outcomes. Most often the former will lead to the latter, but not always. The existence of the procedural unconscionability without substantive unconscionability may be sufficient to set aside a contract, but the latter, by itself, may not. As with issues of
1150:
is the leading authority on unconscionable dealing in
Australia, courts have frequently relied upon other cases to help define what constitutes special disability. Courts have extended the scope of what is special disability to include infatuation causing vulnerability and mental disorder. In
1089:
are physically hidden by small print located in the middle of an obscure paragraph of a lengthy loan agreement. In such a case a court may find that there is no meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract and that the weaker party has not accepted the terms of the contract.
1097:
adhesion contracts in themselves, specific terms may render them unconscionable. Examples of gross one-sidedness would be provisions that limit damages against the seller, or limit the rights of the purchaser to seek relief in the courts against the seller. In the 2009 case of
1356:
arises, by operation of law, when the conscience of a legal owner is affected meaning they cannot deny the equitable interest of the beneficiary for whom they consequently hold the property as trustee. Additionally, unconscionability is a necessary element to the finding of
1304:
external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable to enforce agreements. Controversy exists as to whether a contract should be voidable simply because one party was pressured by circumstances wholly outside the other party's control.
1345:
and did not advise her to get independent legal advice. She signed the contract, and the bank later called in the loan when the Morgans defaulted. Mrs. Morgan's defense was that the bank manager had exercised undue influence over her in procuring her signature. Unlike
1349:, it was found that there was no undue influence since the transaction was not a "manifest disadvantage" to the couple, and that Mrs. Morgan had not established a relationship of trust and confidence in the brief time she spent with the NatWest manager.
2266:
1379:
Court of Appeals returned the case to the lower court for trial to determine further facts, but held that the contract could be considered unconscionable and negated if it was procured due to a gross inequality of bargaining power.
303:
1008:
Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made, such as their bargaining power, age, and mental capacity. Other issues might include lack of choice,
1070:
consideration, the court's role is not to determine whether someone has made a good or bad bargain, but merely whether that party had the opportunity to properly judge what was best in their own interests.
2349:
2259:
1200:
The doctrine of unconscionability is well-established in Canada, where it has branched from the older and more settled doctrine of undue influence. The leading case on unconscionability in Canada is
1331:
the agreement to raise the amount of the mortgage, and that it had exploited Bundy's weakness. The transaction was found to be unconscionable, and Bundy only had to honor the lower mortgage amount.
1927:
308:
2103:
1313:
which adopted the American position that all impairments of autonomy should fall under the single principle of "inequality of bargaining power". In this case, Bundy agreed to increase the
2150:
1410:
1192:
and other cases have seen a greater willingness by courts to set aside contracts on the grounds of unconscionability. This has been partly influenced by recent statutory developments.
1025:
of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. When a party takes unconscionable advantage of another, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of deceit.
1321:
being extended to his son's business. The question was whether the contract leading to the repossession of Bundy's farmhouse was voidable due to pressure brought by the bank. The
1181:
Using undue influence or coercion, where the consumer is not in a position to make an independent decision based on the fact that undue influence is made to bear upon him/her.
1893:
2505:
522:
2183:
2164:
571:
2273:
696:
263:
2661:
2453:
1736:
765:
2096:
956:
1162:
it was found that the severity of Ryan's drunkenness, in combination with Blomley's knowledge of his alcoholism, was enough to warrant special disability. In
1251:
Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitration clause in Heller's contract with Uber was unconscionable. Further, the majority held that the contract was
2356:
1267:, argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it effectively denied Heller access to justice and was therefore contrary to public policy.
1177:
Based on this case, the new concept of "unconscionability" in general and contractual law was passed by Australian legislation, defining it in two ways:
2609:
681:
3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions
1915:
1547:
1135:
2634:
2089:
2768:
2564:
2238:
2231:
2058:
1371:
2143:
2005:
1336:
741:
2446:
2280:
1000:
offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
996:
because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the
1923:
1322:
1668:
1384:
1056:
949:
2245:
1815:
Black, Alexander J. (2011). "Undue Influence and Unconscionability in Contracts and the Equitable Remedy of Rescission in Canada".
1883:
1081:
language into a contract containing terms unlikely to be understood or appreciated by the average person, such as a disclaimer of
2342:
2305:
2157:
1955:
1693:
1294:
327:
291:
2380:
1206:(2020). As applied in Canada, the doctrine limits the enforceability of "unfair agreements that resulted from an inequality of
1968:
Lima, Augusto C. (April 19, 2008). "When Harry Met Kreutzinger: A Look Into Unconscionability Through the Lenses of Culture".
1684:
Priestley, L.J. (1986). "Unconscionability as a Restriction on the Exercise of Contractual Rights". In Carter, John W. (ed.).
1111:
was illusory and unconscionable. However, whether that contract was unconscionable is unknown, as the court ruled that it was
1013:, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the bargaining process. Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of
2460:
2321:
2287:
1507:
1202:
1039:
320:
2408:
984:
that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior
1280:
942:
915:
586:
176:
1473:
1185:
contract. So, in this case, the trader is taking advantage of the consumer's lack of understanding for his own benefit.
2763:
2498:
1863:
Hunter Engineering Co. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd., 1989 1 S.C.R. 426 at p. 462, per Dickson C.J., and p. 516 per Wilson J
1525:
1099:
1010:
71:
2709:
2439:
2202:
2112:
1085:, or a provision extending liability for a newly purchased item to goods previously purchased from the same seller.
734:
685:
606:
332:
2252:
884:
581:
540:
452:
2654:
2175:
2136:
1765:
1745:
1719:
1640:
1616:
1587:
1556:
1247:
388:
101:
1951:
2491:
2394:
2367:
2294:
1987:
1769:
1723:
1709:
1644:
1620:
1591:
1560:
1397:
1309:
1277:
1044:
805:
710:
561:
370:
220:
2593:
1431:
1388:
1223:
1211:
286:
246:
171:
147:
129:
2758:
2571:
2402:
1688:. Sydney: Committee for Postgraduate Studies in the Dept. of Law, University of Sydney. pp. 80–81.
1108:
727:
714:
703:
576:
566:
510:
134:
2213:
2127:
1512:
1376:
1358:
1093:
889:
780:
594:
431:
281:
160:
66:
61:
1578:
2700:
2527:
2390:
2064:
879:
836:
350:
241:
106:
86:
1796:
2627:
2602:
2512:
2328:
1782:
1478:
1392:
1353:
1264:
1078:
1048:
910:
869:
864:
859:
850:
636:
599:
441:
413:
379:
272:
257:
251:
225:
2729:
2720:
2645:
2523:
1973:
1969:
1916:"Uber v Heller and the Prospects for a Transnational Judicial Dialogue on the Gig Economy – I"
1689:
1664:
1300:
1022:
905:
493:
482:
203:
143:
124:
81:
1835:
1658:
1170:
Courts have also frequently relied upon the observation of the majority of the High Court in
2668:
2537:
2482:
2432:
2419:
1426:
1421:
1207:
1112:
1034:
985:
920:
516:
403:
398:
360:
355:
198:
181:
1761:
1741:
1715:
1636:
1612:
1583:
1552:
2675:
2335:
2314:
2026:
1607:
1449:
1438:
1219:
1030:
815:
800:
795:
519:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)
408:
138:
115:
1246:
arguing that drivers are employees and therefore entitled to benefits under the Ontarian
1073:
There are several typical examples in which unconscionability are most frequently found:
2044:
1531:
2690:
2555:
2544:
2375:
2039:
1992:
1444:
1318:
713:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to
654:
545:
476:
461:
209:
56:
2752:
2423:
1314:
1215:
997:
993:
925:
445:
193:
166:
96:
1884:"Supreme Court sides with Uber drivers, opening door to $ 400M class-action lawsuit"
1077:
Where a party that typically engages in sophisticated business transactions inserts
2193:
2010:
1327:
1260:
1239:
981:
757:
649:
644:
631:
422:
76:
41:
1341:
1104:
1065:
is seen as the disadvantage suffered by a weaker party in negotiations, whereas
841:
820:
487:
393:
298:
215:
1352:
Unconscionability is also an important element of the English law of trusts. A
2221:
1252:
1235:
1082:
1052:
874:
689:
672:
91:
17:
2081:
2217:
1737:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holders Pty Ltd
1158:
Intoxication is generally not regarded as a special disability, although in
1130:
977:
930:
640:
315:
1174:
when considering the amount of knowledge that can be imputed to a company.
2267:
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
1954:, 95 DLR (3d) 231; 9 BCLR 166; BCJ No 1318 (QL) (29 December 1978),
1888:
1115:
and therefore not enforceable, and disregarded all further consideration.
790:
785:
470:
365:
188:
33:
1657:
Goldring, John; Maher, Laurence; McKeough, Jill; Pearson, Gail (1998).
436:
1263:
lawsuit against Uber to proceed to trial. Justice Russell Brown, in a
1416:
1018:
1474:
Recent Case: Supreme Court of Canada Targets Standard Form Contracts
1432:
Mistake (contract law) § Unilateral Mistake § Exceptions
1663:(5th ed.). Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press. pp. 33–34.
1334:
It is notable that Denning's judgment did not represent the law in
1014:
2350:
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court
2260:
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
1243:
626:
2085:
1369:
The leading case for unconscionability in the United States is
1103:, the plaintiff argued that Blockbuster's provision to compel
616:
988:, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an
2151:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
1817:
New England Journal of International and Comparative Law
1411:
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
1307:
The leading case on undue influence is considered to be
706:
both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces
1836:"Uber v Heller Affirms Two-Step Unconscionability Test"
1391:
regarding the terms or conditions of a contract or a
2023:
Paragon Finance Plc v D B Thakerar & Co (A Firm)
709:
7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American
2719:
2699:
2689:
2644:
2619:
2592:
2585:
2554:
2522:
2481:
2474:
2418:
2389:
2366:
2304:
2212:
2192:
2174:
2126:
2119:
1299:"Inequality of bargaining power" is a term used in
2506:Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America
2184:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States
523:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law
2165:Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc
1602:
1600:
2662:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States
2274:Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology
1573:
1571:
1569:
2454:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States
2076:Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 153 (1979).
678:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions
2097:
1542:
1540:
1387:, a party may assert a claim for relief from
950:
735:
8:
1255:because it attempted to contract out of the
2357:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
715:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
2696:
2610:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly
2589:
2478:
2123:
2104:
2090:
2082:
1686:Rights and remedies for breach of contract
1317:on his farmhouse in order to maintain the
1259:. As a result, the Court allowed Heller's
957:
943:
753:
742:
728:
29:
1548:Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio
1136:Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio
2635:SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
2144:Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino
1810:
1808:
1806:
1502:
1500:
1498:
1496:
1494:
1492:
1490:
1488:
1055:in Ontario to litigate before the Dutch
2565:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
2239:Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.
2059:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
1896:from the original on September 19, 2020
1854:Hodgkinson v. Simms, 1994 3 S.C.R. 377,
1460:
1372:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
897:
849:
828:
772:
756:
662:
614:
553:
532:
502:
460:
421:
378:
342:
271:
233:
114:
48:
32:
2006:National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan
1930:from the original on September 3, 2020
1466:
1464:
1337:National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan
511:Duty of honest contractual performance
2447:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
2281:Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.
2067: (D.C. Cir. August 11, 1965).
1092:Where a seller offers a standardized
699:of International Commercial Contracts
7:
1924:Faculty of Law, University of Oxford
1323:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
1633:Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd
1534: (N.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2009).
1172:Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd
688:and other civil codes based on the
2246:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
2047:, 2 All ER 289 (8 March 2000)
2029:, 1 ALL ER 400 (21 July 1998)
1882:Stefanovich, Olivia (2020-06-26).
25:
1872:Norberg v. Wynrib, 2 S.C.R. 226.
1797:Competition and Consumer Act 2010
1057:International Chamber of Commerce
2381:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent
2343:King v. Trustees of Boston Univ.
2158:Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green
1295:Unconscionability in English law
1059:was unconscionable and so void.
764:
513:(or doctrine of abuse of rights)
328:Enforcement of foreign judgments
292:Hague Choice of Court Convention
40:
1385:Second Restatement of Contracts
2769:Legal doctrines and principles
2461:Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton
2322:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
2288:Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.
1958:(British Columbia, Canada)
1508:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
1203:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
1040:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
974:unconscionable dealing/conduct
321:Singapore Mediation Convention
1:
2409:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
1834:Kristy Milland (2020-06-29).
1067:substantive unconscionability
695:5 Explicitly rejected by the
462:Quasi-contractual obligations
2027:[1998] EWCA Civ 1249
2013:, AC 686 (7 March 1985)
1214:; especially with regard to
1063:Procedural unconscionability
2499:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
1526:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
1100:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
2785:
2710:Drennan v. Star Paving Co.
2530:(unwritten & informal)
2440:Seixas and Seixas v. Woods
2203:Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc.
2113:United States contract law
2045:[2000] EWCA Civ 66
1292:
1238:was attempting to bring a
333:Hague Judgments Convention
2475:Defense against formation
2253:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
2040:Gillett v Holt & Anor
1993:[1974] EWCA Civ 8
1914:Bogg, Alan (2020-07-19).
1783:Contracts Review Act 1980
1590:362 (28 March 1956),
1532:622 F.Supp.2d 396
684:4 Specific to the German
2655:United States v. Spearin
2176:Implied-in-fact contract
2137:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
1643:563 (29 June 1995),
1472:
1257:Employment Standards Act
1248:Employment Standards Act
389:Anticipatory repudiation
139:unequal bargaining power
27:Doctrine in contract law
2492:Morrison v. Amway Corp.
2368:Substantial performance
2295:Feldman v. Google, Inc.
1988:Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy
1920:Oxford Human Rights Hub
1710:Commonwealth v Verwayen
1660:Consumer Protection Law
1398:Uniform Commercial Code
1347:Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy
1310:Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy
1224:forum selection clauses
1212:standard form contracts
1045:Supreme Court of Canada
1021:, where the deliberate
992:contract is held to be
711:Uniform Commercial Code
686:BĂĽrgerliches Gesetzbuch
371:Third-party beneficiary
343:Rights of third parties
221:Accord and satisfaction
442:Liquidated, stipulated
287:Forum selection clause
172:Frustration of purpose
2572:Buchwald v. Paramount
2403:De Cicco v. Schweizer
2011:[1985] UKHL 2
1762:[1998] HCA 66
1742:[2003] HCA 18
1716:[1990] HCA 39
1637:[1995] HCA 68
1613:[1992] HCA 61
1584:[1956] HCA 81
1553:[1983] HCA 14
1109:class action lawsuits
704:Canadian contract law
72:Abstraction principle
2128:Offer and acceptance
2065:320 F.2d 445
1377:District of Columbia
1359:proprietary estoppel
1276:(1978), Harry was a
1094:contract of adhesion
972:(sometimes known as
890:Specific performance
781:Equitable conversion
533:Related areas of law
432:Specific performance
282:Choice of law clause
247:Contract of adhesion
161:Culpa in contrahendo
67:Meeting of the minds
62:Offer and acceptance
2701:Promissory estoppel
2586:Cancelling Contract
1995: (30 July 1974)
1948:Harry v. Kreutziger
1758:Bridgewater v Leahy
1274:Harry v. Kreutziger
980:) is a doctrine in
837:Bona fide purchaser
758:Equitable doctrines
697:UNIDROIT Principles
471:Promissory estoppel
351:Privity of contract
304:New York Convention
264:UNIDROIT Principles
107:Collateral contract
102:Implication-in-fact
87:Invitation to treat
2764:Equitable defenses
2628:Stoddard v. Martin
2603:Sherwood v. Walker
2513:McMichael v. Price
2329:Kirksey v. Kirksey
2232:Specht v. Netscape
2120:Contract formation
1393:liquidated damages
1389:unilateral mistake
1354:constructive trust
1265:concurring opinion
1049:arbitration clause
1011:superior knowledge
911:Equitable interest
870:Declaratory relief
865:Constructive trust
860:Account of profits
851:Equitable remedies
517:Duty of good faith
414:Fundamental breach
380:Breach of contract
309:UNCITRAL Model Law
273:Dispute resolution
258:Contra proferentem
252:Integration clause
226:Exculpatory clause
2743:
2742:
2739:
2738:
2730:Britton v. Turner
2721:Unjust enrichment
2685:
2684:
2646:Misrepresentation
2581:
2580:
2524:Statute of frauds
2470:
2469:
1434:: Exception (3).
1301:England and Wales
1289:England and Wales
1029:is regarded as a
1023:misrepresentation
970:Unconscionability
967:
966:
916:History of equity
906:Court of Chancery
811:Unconscionability
752:
751:
595:England and Wales
503:Duties of parties
494:Negotiorum gestio
483:Unjust enrichment
204:Statute of frauds
153:Unconscionability
125:Misrepresentation
82:Mirror image rule
16:(Redirected from
2776:
2697:
2669:Laidlaw v. Organ
2590:
2538:Buffaloe v. Hart
2526:(written) &
2483:Illusory promise
2479:
2433:Hawkins v. McGee
2420:Implied warranty
2124:
2106:
2099:
2092:
2083:
2077:
2074:
2068:
2062:
2054:
2048:
2036:
2030:
2020:
2014:
2002:
1996:
1984:
1978:
1977:
1965:
1959:
1945:
1939:
1938:
1936:
1935:
1911:
1905:
1904:
1902:
1901:
1879:
1873:
1870:
1864:
1861:
1855:
1852:
1846:
1845:
1843:
1842:
1831:
1825:
1824:
1812:
1801:
1793:
1787:
1779:
1773:
1755:
1749:
1733:
1727:
1712:("Voyager case")
1706:
1700:
1699:
1681:
1675:
1674:
1654:
1648:
1630:
1624:
1604:
1595:
1575:
1564:
1544:
1535:
1529:
1521:
1515:
1504:
1483:
1482:
1481:2598 (2021).
1476:
1468:
1427:Liability waiver
1422:Implied warranty
1242:lawsuit against
1208:bargaining power
1035:question of fact
986:bargaining power
959:
952:
945:
921:Maxims of equity
768:
754:
744:
737:
730:
572:China (mainland)
541:Conflict of laws
404:Efficient breach
399:Exclusion clause
199:Illusory promise
182:Impracticability
44:
30:
21:
2784:
2783:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2749:
2748:
2746:
2744:
2735:
2715:
2681:
2676:Smith v. Bolles
2640:
2615:
2577:
2550:
2518:
2466:
2414:
2385:
2362:
2336:Angel v. Murray
2315:Hamer v. Sidway
2300:
2208:
2188:
2170:
2115:
2110:
2080:
2075:
2071:
2056:
2055:
2051:
2037:
2033:
2021:
2017:
2003:
1999:
1985:
1981:
1967:
1966:
1962:
1956:Court of Appeal
1952:1978 CanLII 393
1946:
1942:
1933:
1931:
1913:
1912:
1908:
1899:
1897:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1871:
1867:
1862:
1858:
1853:
1849:
1840:
1838:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1814:
1813:
1804:
1794:
1790:
1780:
1776:
1756:
1752:
1734:
1730:
1707:
1703:
1696:
1683:
1682:
1678:
1671:
1656:
1655:
1651:
1631:
1627:
1608:Louth v Diprose
1605:
1598:
1576:
1567:
1545:
1538:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1505:
1486:
1470:
1469:
1462:
1458:
1450:Undue influence
1439:Moffat v Moffat
1406:
1367:
1297:
1291:
1220:choice of court
1198:
1164:Blomley v Ryan,
1153:Louth v Diprose
1127:
1122:
1031:question of law
1006:
963:
816:Undue influence
796:Knowing receipt
748:
719:
591:United Kingdom
554:By jurisdiction
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2782:
2780:
2772:
2771:
2766:
2761:
2751:
2750:
2741:
2740:
2737:
2736:
2734:
2733:
2725:
2723:
2717:
2716:
2714:
2713:
2705:
2703:
2694:
2691:Quasi-contract
2687:
2686:
2683:
2682:
2680:
2679:
2672:
2665:
2658:
2650:
2648:
2642:
2641:
2639:
2638:
2631:
2623:
2621:
2617:
2616:
2614:
2613:
2606:
2598:
2596:
2587:
2583:
2582:
2579:
2578:
2576:
2575:
2568:
2560:
2558:
2556:Unconscionable
2552:
2551:
2549:
2548:
2545:Foman v. Davis
2541:
2533:
2531:
2528:Parol evidence
2520:
2519:
2517:
2516:
2509:
2502:
2495:
2487:
2485:
2476:
2472:
2471:
2468:
2467:
2465:
2464:
2457:
2450:
2443:
2436:
2428:
2426:
2416:
2415:
2413:
2412:
2405:
2399:
2397:
2387:
2386:
2384:
2383:
2378:
2376:Lucy v. Zehmer
2372:
2370:
2364:
2363:
2361:
2360:
2353:
2346:
2339:
2332:
2325:
2318:
2310:
2308:
2302:
2301:
2299:
2298:
2291:
2284:
2277:
2270:
2263:
2256:
2249:
2242:
2235:
2227:
2225:
2210:
2209:
2207:
2206:
2198:
2196:
2190:
2189:
2187:
2186:
2180:
2178:
2172:
2171:
2169:
2168:
2161:
2154:
2147:
2140:
2132:
2130:
2121:
2117:
2116:
2111:
2109:
2108:
2101:
2094:
2086:
2079:
2078:
2069:
2049:
2031:
2015:
1997:
1979:
1960:
1940:
1906:
1874:
1865:
1856:
1847:
1826:
1802:
1788:
1774:
1750:
1728:
1701:
1694:
1676:
1669:
1649:
1625:
1596:
1579:Blomley v Ryan
1565:
1536:
1516:
1484:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1447:
1445:Non est factum
1442:
1435:
1429:
1424:
1419:
1414:
1405:
1402:
1366:
1363:
1319:line of credit
1293:Main article:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1269:
1268:
1197:
1194:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1160:Blomley v Ryan
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1090:
1086:
1033:rather than a
1005:
1002:
990:unconscionable
965:
964:
962:
961:
954:
947:
939:
936:
935:
934:
933:
928:
923:
918:
913:
908:
900:
899:
895:
894:
893:
892:
887:
882:
877:
872:
867:
862:
854:
853:
847:
846:
845:
844:
839:
831:
830:
826:
825:
824:
823:
818:
813:
808:
803:
798:
793:
788:
783:
775:
774:
770:
769:
761:
760:
750:
749:
747:
746:
739:
732:
724:
721:
720:
718:
717:
707:
702:6 Specific to
700:
693:
682:
679:
676:
671:1 Specific to
668:
665:
664:
660:
659:
658:
657:
652:
647:
634:
629:
621:
620:
612:
611:
610:
609:
604:
603:
602:
597:
589:
584:
579:
574:
569:
564:
556:
555:
551:
550:
549:
548:
546:Commercial law
543:
535:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
514:
505:
504:
500:
499:
498:
497:
490:
485:
480:
477:Quantum meruit
473:
465:
464:
458:
457:
456:
455:
450:
449:
448:
434:
426:
425:
419:
418:
417:
416:
411:
406:
401:
396:
391:
383:
382:
376:
375:
374:
373:
368:
363:
358:
353:
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
325:
324:
323:
313:
312:
311:
306:
296:
295:
294:
284:
276:
275:
269:
268:
267:
266:
261:
254:
249:
244:
242:Parol evidence
236:
235:
234:Interpretation
231:
230:
229:
228:
223:
218:
213:
210:Non est factum
206:
201:
196:
191:
186:
185:
184:
179:
174:
164:
157:
156:
155:
141:
132:
127:
119:
118:
112:
111:
110:
109:
104:
99:
94:
89:
84:
79:
74:
69:
64:
59:
51:
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:
26:
24:
18:Unconscionable
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2781:
2770:
2767:
2765:
2762:
2760:
2757:
2756:
2754:
2747:
2732:
2731:
2727:
2726:
2724:
2722:
2718:
2712:
2711:
2707:
2706:
2704:
2702:
2698:
2695:
2692:
2688:
2678:
2677:
2673:
2671:
2670:
2666:
2664:
2663:
2659:
2657:
2656:
2652:
2651:
2649:
2647:
2643:
2637:
2636:
2632:
2630:
2629:
2625:
2624:
2622:
2618:
2612:
2611:
2607:
2605:
2604:
2600:
2599:
2597:
2595:
2591:
2588:
2584:
2574:
2573:
2569:
2567:
2566:
2562:
2561:
2559:
2557:
2553:
2547:
2546:
2542:
2540:
2539:
2535:
2534:
2532:
2529:
2525:
2521:
2515:
2514:
2510:
2508:
2507:
2503:
2501:
2500:
2496:
2494:
2493:
2489:
2488:
2486:
2484:
2480:
2477:
2473:
2463:
2462:
2458:
2456:
2455:
2451:
2449:
2448:
2444:
2442:
2441:
2437:
2435:
2434:
2430:
2429:
2427:
2425:
2424:caveat emptor
2421:
2417:
2411:
2410:
2406:
2404:
2401:
2400:
2398:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2382:
2379:
2377:
2374:
2373:
2371:
2369:
2365:
2359:
2358:
2354:
2352:
2351:
2347:
2345:
2344:
2340:
2338:
2337:
2333:
2331:
2330:
2326:
2324:
2323:
2319:
2317:
2316:
2312:
2311:
2309:
2307:
2306:Consideration
2303:
2297:
2296:
2292:
2290:
2289:
2285:
2283:
2282:
2278:
2276:
2275:
2271:
2269:
2268:
2264:
2262:
2261:
2257:
2255:
2254:
2250:
2248:
2247:
2243:
2241:
2240:
2236:
2234:
2233:
2229:
2228:
2226:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2205:
2204:
2200:
2199:
2197:
2195:
2191:
2185:
2182:
2181:
2179:
2177:
2173:
2167:
2166:
2162:
2160:
2159:
2155:
2153:
2152:
2148:
2146:
2145:
2141:
2139:
2138:
2134:
2133:
2131:
2129:
2125:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2107:
2102:
2100:
2095:
2093:
2088:
2087:
2084:
2073:
2070:
2066:
2061:
2060:
2053:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2041:
2035:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2019:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2007:
2001:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1989:
1983:
1980:
1975:
1971:
1964:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1944:
1941:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1910:
1907:
1895:
1891:
1890:
1885:
1878:
1875:
1869:
1866:
1860:
1857:
1851:
1848:
1837:
1830:
1827:
1822:
1818:
1811:
1809:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1798:
1792:
1789:
1785:
1784:
1778:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1764:, (1998) 194
1763:
1759:
1754:
1751:
1747:
1744:, (2003) 214
1743:
1739:
1738:
1732:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1718:, (1990) 170
1717:
1713:
1711:
1705:
1702:
1697:
1691:
1687:
1680:
1677:
1672:
1670:1-86287-281-3
1666:
1662:
1661:
1653:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1639:, (1995) 183
1638:
1634:
1629:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1615:, (1992) 175
1614:
1610:
1609:
1603:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1580:
1574:
1572:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1555:, (1983) 151
1554:
1550:
1549:
1543:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1528:
1527:
1520:
1517:
1514:
1510:
1509:
1503:
1501:
1499:
1497:
1495:
1493:
1491:
1489:
1485:
1480:
1479:Harv. L. Rev.
1475:
1467:
1465:
1461:
1455:
1451:
1448:
1446:
1443:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1428:
1425:
1423:
1420:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1401:
1399:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1365:United States
1364:
1362:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1348:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1332:
1329:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1305:
1302:
1296:
1288:
1282:
1279:
1278:First Nations
1275:
1271:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1232:Uber v Heller
1229:
1228:
1227:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:choice of law
1213:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1195:
1193:
1191:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1175:
1173:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1156:
1154:
1149:
1144:
1140:
1138:
1137:
1132:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1003:
1001:
999:
998:consideration
995:
994:unenforceable
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
960:
955:
953:
948:
946:
941:
940:
938:
937:
932:
929:
927:
924:
922:
919:
917:
914:
912:
909:
907:
904:
903:
902:
901:
896:
891:
888:
886:
883:
881:
880:Rectification
878:
876:
873:
871:
868:
866:
863:
861:
858:
857:
856:
855:
852:
848:
843:
840:
838:
835:
834:
833:
832:
827:
822:
819:
817:
814:
812:
809:
807:
804:
802:
799:
797:
794:
792:
789:
787:
784:
782:
779:
778:
777:
776:
771:
767:
763:
762:
759:
755:
745:
740:
738:
733:
731:
726:
725:
723:
722:
716:
712:
708:
705:
701:
698:
694:
691:
687:
683:
680:
677:
675:jurisdictions
674:
670:
669:
667:
666:
661:
656:
653:
651:
648:
646:
642:
638:
635:
633:
630:
628:
625:
624:
623:
622:
618:
613:
608:
607:United States
605:
601:
598:
596:
593:
592:
590:
588:
585:
583:
580:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
563:
560:
559:
558:
557:
552:
547:
544:
542:
539:
538:
537:
536:
531:
524:
521:
520:
518:
515:
512:
509:
508:
507:
506:
501:
496:
495:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
479:
478:
474:
472:
469:
468:
467:
466:
463:
459:
454:
451:
447:
446:penal damages
443:
440:
439:
438:
437:Money damages
435:
433:
430:
429:
428:
427:
424:
420:
415:
412:
410:
407:
405:
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
390:
387:
386:
385:
384:
381:
377:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
352:
349:
348:
347:
346:
341:
334:
331:
330:
329:
326:
322:
319:
318:
317:
314:
310:
307:
305:
302:
301:
300:
297:
293:
290:
289:
288:
285:
283:
280:
279:
278:
277:
274:
270:
265:
262:
260:
259:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
232:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
216:Unclean hands
214:
212:
211:
207:
205:
202:
200:
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
183:
180:
178:
177:Impossibility
175:
173:
170:
169:
168:
167:Force majeure
165:
163:
162:
158:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:public policy
145:
142:
140:
136:
133:
131:
128:
126:
123:
122:
121:
120:
117:
113:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
97:Consideration
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
63:
60:
58:
55:
54:
53:
52:
47:
43:
39:
38:
35:
31:
19:
2759:Contract law
2745:
2728:
2708:
2674:
2667:
2660:
2653:
2633:
2626:
2608:
2601:
2570:
2563:
2543:
2536:
2511:
2504:
2497:
2490:
2459:
2452:
2445:
2438:
2431:
2407:
2355:
2348:
2341:
2334:
2327:
2320:
2313:
2293:
2286:
2279:
2272:
2265:
2258:
2251:
2244:
2237:
2230:
2201:
2194:Mailbox rule
2163:
2156:
2149:
2142:
2135:
2072:
2057:
2052:
2038:
2034:
2022:
2018:
2004:
2000:
1986:
1982:
1963:
1947:
1943:
1932:. Retrieved
1919:
1909:
1898:. Retrieved
1887:
1877:
1868:
1859:
1850:
1839:. Retrieved
1829:
1820:
1816:
1795:
1791:
1781:
1777:
1772:(Australia).
1757:
1753:
1735:
1731:
1708:
1704:
1695:0-86758261-8
1685:
1679:
1659:
1652:
1647:(Australia).
1632:
1628:
1623:(Australia).
1606:
1594:(Australia).
1586:, (1956) 99
1577:
1563:(Australia).
1546:
1524:
1519:
1506:
1437:
1409:
1382:
1370:
1368:
1351:
1346:
1335:
1333:
1328:Lord Denning
1308:
1306:
1298:
1273:
1261:class action
1256:
1240:class action
1231:
1201:
1199:
1189:
1188:
1176:
1171:
1169:
1163:
1159:
1157:
1152:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1134:
1129:The leading
1128:
1098:
1072:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1038:
1027:
1007:
989:
982:contract law
973:
969:
968:
810:
650:Criminal law
632:Property law
587:Saudi Arabia
492:
475:
256:
208:
159:
152:
77:Posting rule
34:Contract law
2395:3rd parties
1726:(Australia)
1513:2020 SCC 16
1342:bridge loan
1107:and forbid
1105:arbitration
1079:boilerplate
1053:gig workers
1043:(2020) the
842:Clean hands
821:Subrogation
806:Marshalling
488:Restitution
299:Arbitration
2753:Categories
2693:obligation
2620:Illegality
2224:agreements
2222:Browsewrap
2214:Shrinkwrap
1934:2020-09-17
1900:2020-09-17
1841:2022-10-14
1770:High Court
1724:High Court
1645:High Court
1621:High Court
1592:High Court
1561:High Court
1456:References
1383:Under the
1281:Aboriginal
1236:gig worker
1234:(2020), a
1131:Australian
1120:By country
1083:warranties
1051:requiring
885:Rescission
875:Injunction
690:pandectist
673:common law
453:Rescission
361:Delegation
356:Assignment
144:Illegality
92:Firm offer
2218:Clickwrap
1125:Australia
1047:found an
978:Australia
931:Trust law
773:Doctrines
692:tradition
562:Australia
409:Deviation
316:Mediation
49:Formation
1928:Archived
1894:Archived
1889:CBC News
1404:See also
1315:mortgage
1133:case is
1113:illusory
1004:Overview
829:Defences
791:Hotchpot
786:Estoppel
655:Evidence
627:Tort law
600:Scotland
423:Remedies
366:Novation
189:Hardship
116:Defences
57:Capacity
2594:Mistake
2391:Privity
1974:1124922
1950:,
1511:,
926:Tracing
898:Related
645:estates
577:Ireland
194:Set-off
135:Threats
130:Mistake
2393:&
2063:,
1972:
1800:(Cth).
1692:
1667:
1530:,
1477:, 134
1471:Note,
1417:Duress
1196:Canada
1190:Amadio
1148:Amadio
1146:While
1019:deceit
801:Laches
643:, and
641:trusts
615:Other
567:Canada
2043:
2025:
2009:
1991:
1823:: 47.
1786:(NSW)
1768:457,
1760:
1740:
1722:394,
1714:
1635:
1619:621,
1611:
1582:
1559:447,
1551:
1222:, or
1015:fraud
663:Notes
637:Wills
619:areas
582:India
444:, or
394:Cover
1970:SSRN
1690:ISBN
1665:ISBN
1253:void
1244:Uber
1017:and
146:and
137:and
1766:CLR
1748:51.
1746:CLR
1720:CLR
1641:CLR
1617:CLR
1588:CLR
1557:CLR
1272:In
1230:In
976:in
617:law
2755::
2422:,
2220:,
2216:,
1926:.
1922:.
1918:.
1892:.
1886:.
1821:17
1819:.
1805:^
1599:^
1568:^
1539:^
1487:^
1463:^
1400:.
1361:.
1218:,
639:,
2105:e
2098:t
2091:v
1976:.
1937:.
1903:.
1844:.
1698:.
1673:.
958:e
951:t
944:v
743:e
736:t
729:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
