1273:
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 The court rescinded the contract because of the unconscionability of the underlying transaction, ruling that the buyer was trying to take advantage of the seller's lack of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.
1144:, 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.
1199:". 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
755:
1026:; 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
1128:, 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.
1132:
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.
1215:. 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".
31:
1385:
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
1364:, 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
1329:, 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
1156:
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.
1085:
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
1155:
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
1077:
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
1017:
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
1384:
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,
1333:
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
1314:
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
1272:
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
1239:
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
1319:
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
1315:
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.
1131:
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
1173:
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
1292:
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
1058:
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
1139:
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
1078:
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.
1086:
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
1345:
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
1293:
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.
1725:
1334:
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
1338:, 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.
1368:
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.
997:
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,
1059:
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.
2255:
1189:
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
1320:
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.
1916:
292:
1302:
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
1181:
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.
1014:
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.
2338:
2248:
1310:
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
1170:
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.
1882:
297:
2092:
2139:
1399:
1151:
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
1240:
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
565:
1256:, argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it effectively denied Heller access to justice and was therefore contrary to public policy.
1166:
Based on this case, the new concept of "unconscionability" in general and contractual law was passed by Australian legislation, defining it in two ways:
670:
3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions
1904:
2494:
511:
2172:
2153:
560:
2262:
1567:
685:
252:
2650:
2442:
2085:
989:
offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
945:
985:
because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the
2345:
2598:
1536:
1124:
499:
2623:
2078:
1804:
Black, Alexander J. (2011). "Undue Influence and Unconscionability in Contracts and the Equitable Remedy of Rescission in Canada".
1872:
1070:
language into a contract containing terms unlikely to be understood or appreciated by the average person, such as a disclaimer of
2757:
2553:
2227:
2220:
2132:
2047:
1360:
754:
1994:
1325:
1195:(2020). As applied in Canada, the doctrine limits the enforceability of "unfair agreements that resulted from an inequality of
730:
1957:
Lima, Augusto C. (April 19, 2008). "When Harry Met Kreutzinger: A Look Into Unconscionability Through the Lenses of Culture".
1673:
Priestley, L.J. (1986). "Unconscionability as a Restriction on the Exercise of Contractual Rights". In Carter, John W. (ed.).
1100:
was illusory and unconscionable. However, whether that contract was unconscionable is unknown, as the court ruled that it was
1002:, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the bargaining process. Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of
2435:
2269:
703:
1912:
1311:
973:
that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior
1462:
1174:
contract. So, in this case, the trader is taking advantage of the consumer's lack of understanding for his own benefit.
1852:
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
2234:
1657:
1373:
1045:
938:
2331:
2294:
2146:
1944:
1682:
1377:
1283:
1074:, or a provision extending liability for a newly purchased item to goods previously purchased from the same seller.
316:
280:
2369:
2449:
2310:
2276:
1496:
1191:
1028:
309:
1940:
2397:
1269:
931:
904:
575:
165:
1420:
2752:
2487:
1514:
1088:
999:
60:
1677:. Sydney: Committee for Postgraduate Studies in the Dept. of Law, University of Sydney. pp. 80–81.
2698:
2428:
2191:
2101:
723:
595:
321:
674:
2241:
1501:
873:
570:
529:
441:
2643:
2164:
2125:
2053:
1754:
1734:
1708:
1629:
1605:
1576:
1545:
1236:
377:
90:
1785:
2480:
2383:
2356:
2283:
1976:
1771:
1758:
1712:
1698:
1633:
1609:
1580:
1549:
1386:
1298:
1266:
1033:
794:
699:
550:
359:
209:
2582:
1212:
1200:
275:
235:
160:
136:
118:
1962:
1905:"Uber v Heller and the Prospects for a Transnational Judicial Dialogue on the Gig Economy – I"
2747:
2560:
2391:
1824:
1647:
1159:
Courts have also frequently relied upon the observation of the majority of the High Court in
1097:
716:
692:
555:
123:
2202:
2116:
1750:
1730:
1704:
1625:
1601:
1572:
1541:
1365:
1347:
1082:
878:
769:
583:
420:
270:
149:
55:
50:
2015:
508:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)
8:
2689:
2516:
2379:
1235:
arguing that drivers are employees and therefore entitled to benefits under the Ontarian
1062:
There are several typical examples in which unconscionability are most frequently found:
868:
825:
339:
230:
95:
75:
2033:
1520:
2616:
2591:
2501:
2317:
1981:
1467:
1381:
1342:
1253:
1067:
1037:
899:
858:
853:
848:
839:
702:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to
625:
588:
430:
402:
368:
261:
246:
240:
214:
2718:
2709:
2634:
2512:
1958:
1678:
1653:
1289:
1011:
894:
482:
471:
192:
132:
113:
70:
1873:"Supreme Court sides with Uber drivers, opening door to $ 400M class-action lawsuit"
1066:
Where a party that typically engages in sophisticated business transactions inserts
2657:
2526:
2471:
2421:
2408:
1999:
1415:
1410:
1196:
1101:
1023:
974:
909:
505:
392:
387:
349:
344:
187:
170:
2664:
2324:
2303:
1596:
1438:
1427:
1208:
1019:
804:
789:
784:
397:
127:
104:
1054:
is seen as the disadvantage suffered by a weaker party in negotiations, whereas
2679:
2544:
2533:
2364:
2028:
1433:
1341:
Unconscionability is also an important element of the English law of trusts. A
1307:
643:
534:
465:
450:
198:
45:
2741:
2412:
2070:
1303:
1204:
986:
982:
914:
434:
182:
155:
85:
1726:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holders Pty Ltd
1147:
Intoxication is generally not regarded as a special disability, although in
177:
2182:
1316:
1249:
1228:
1163:
when considering the amount of knowledge that can be imputed to a company.
970:
746:
638:
633:
620:
411:
65:
2256:
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
1943:, 95 DLR (3d) 231; 9 BCLR 166; BCJ No 1318 (QL) (29 December 1978),
1330:
1104:
and therefore not enforceable, and disregarded all further consideration.
1093:
830:
809:
476:
382:
287:
204:
2210:
1646:
Goldring, John; Maher, Laurence; McKeough, Jill; Pearson, Gail (1998).
1241:
1224:
1071:
1041:
863:
678:
661:
80:
1252:
lawsuit against Uber to proceed to trial. Justice Russell Brown, in a
2206:
1119:
966:
919:
629:
304:
30:
1463:
Recent Case: Supreme Court of Canada Targets Standard Form Contracts
1421:
Mistake (contract law) § Unilateral Mistake § Exceptions
1877:
1652:(5th ed.). Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press. pp. 33–34.
1323:
It is notable that Denning's judgment did not represent the law in
779:
774:
459:
354:
22:
1778:
425:
2339:
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court
2249:
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
1405:
1358:
The leading case for unconscionability in the United States is
1007:
1092:, the plaintiff argued that Blockbuster's provision to compel
1003:
1645:
977:, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an
1232:
615:
605:
2140:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
1806:
New England Journal of International and Comparative Law
1400:
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
1296:
The leading case on undue influence is considered to be
695:
both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces
1825:"Uber v Heller Affirms Two-Step Unconscionability Test"
1691:
1380:
regarding the terms or conditions of a contract or a
2012:
Paragon Finance Plc v D B Thakerar & Co (A Firm)
1764:
698:
7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American
1740:
1288:"Inequality of bargaining power" is a term used in
2495:Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America
2173:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States
512:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law
2154:Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc
1591:
1589:
2739:
2651:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States
2263:Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology
1562:
1560:
1558:
2443:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States
2065:Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 153 (1979).
1718:
667:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions
2100:
1822:
1586:
2086:
1555:
1531:
1529:
1376:, a party may assert a claim for relief from
939:
724:
1244:because it attempted to contract out of the
2346:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
1870:
704:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
2599:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly
2093:
2079:
1675:Rights and remedies for breach of contract
1526:
1306:on his farmhouse in order to maintain the
1248:. As a result, the Court allowed Heller's
946:
932:
731:
717:
1672:
1537:Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio
1125:Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio
2624:SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
2133:Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino
1799:
1797:
1795:
1491:
1489:
1487:
1485:
1483:
1481:
1479:
1477:
1044:in Ontario to litigate before the Dutch
2554:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
2228:Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.
2048:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
1885:from the original on September 19, 2020
1843:Hodgkinson v. Simms, 1994 3 S.C.R. 377,
1361:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
2740:
1995:National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan
1919:from the original on September 3, 2020
1455:
1453:
1326:National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan
500:Duty of honest contractual performance
2436:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
2270:Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.
2074:
2056: (D.C. Cir. August 11, 1965).
1803:
1792:
1474:
1081:Where a seller offers a standardized
688:of International Commercial Contracts
1956:
1913:Faculty of Law, University of Oxford
1902:
1459:
1312:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
1277:
1622:Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd
1523: (N.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2009).
1450:
1161:Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd
677:and other civil codes based on the
13:
2235:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
2036:, 2 All ER 289 (8 March 2000)
2018:, 1 ALL ER 400 (21 July 1998)
1896:
1871:Stefanovich, Olivia (2020-06-26).
14:
2769:
1861:Norberg v. Wynrib, 2 S.C.R. 226.
1786:Competition and Consumer Act 2010
1046:International Chamber of Commerce
2370:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent
2332:King v. Trustees of Boston Univ.
2147:Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green
1353:
1284:Unconscionability in English law
1048:was unconscionable and so void.
753:
502:(or doctrine of abuse of rights)
317:Enforcement of foreign judgments
281:Hague Choice of Court Convention
29:
2059:
2039:
2021:
2005:
1987:
1969:
1950:
1930:
1864:
1855:
1846:
1837:
1816:
1374:Second Restatement of Contracts
2758:Legal doctrines and principles
2450:Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton
2311:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
2277:Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.
1947:(British Columbia, Canada)
1666:
1639:
1615:
1506:
1497:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
1192:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
1029:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
963:unconscionable dealing/conduct
310:Singapore Mediation Convention
1:
2398:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
1823:Kristy Milland (2020-06-29).
1444:
1108:
1056:substantive unconscionability
684:5 Explicitly rejected by the
451:Quasi-contractual obligations
2016:[1998] EWCA Civ 1249
2002:, AC 686 (7 March 1985)
1203:; especially with regard to
1113:
1052:Procedural unconscionability
7:
2488:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
1515:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
1392:
1089:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
992:
10:
2774:
2699:Drennan v. Star Paving Co.
2519:(unwritten & informal)
2429:Seixas and Seixas v. Woods
2192:Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc.
2102:United States contract law
2034:[2000] EWCA Civ 66
1281:
1227:was attempting to bring a
322:Hague Judgments Convention
2708:
2688:
2678:
2633:
2608:
2581:
2574:
2543:
2511:
2470:
2464:Defense against formation
2463:
2407:
2378:
2355:
2293:
2242:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
2201:
2181:
2163:
2115:
2108:
2029:Gillett v Holt & Anor
1982:[1974] EWCA Civ 8
1903:Bogg, Alan (2020-07-19).
1772:Contracts Review Act 1980
1579:362 (28 March 1956),
1521:622 F.Supp.2d 396
1184:
673:4 Specific to the German
2644:United States v. Spearin
2165:Implied-in-fact contract
2126:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
1632:563 (29 June 1995),
1461:
1246:Employment Standards Act
1237:Employment Standards Act
378:Anticipatory repudiation
128:unequal bargaining power
16:Doctrine in contract law
2481:Morrison v. Amway Corp.
2357:Substantial performance
2284:Feldman v. Google, Inc.
1977:Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy
1909:Oxford Human Rights Hub
1699:Commonwealth v Verwayen
1649:Consumer Protection Law
1387:Uniform Commercial Code
1336:Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy
1299:Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy
1213:forum selection clauses
1201:standard form contracts
1034:Supreme Court of Canada
1010:, where the deliberate
981:contract is held to be
700:Uniform Commercial Code
675:BĂĽrgerliches Gesetzbuch
360:Third-party beneficiary
332:Rights of third parties
210:Accord and satisfaction
431:Liquidated, stipulated
276:Forum selection clause
161:Frustration of purpose
2561:Buchwald v. Paramount
2392:De Cicco v. Schweizer
2000:[1985] UKHL 2
1751:[1998] HCA 66
1731:[2003] HCA 18
1705:[1990] HCA 39
1626:[1995] HCA 68
1602:[1992] HCA 61
1573:[1956] HCA 81
1542:[1983] HCA 14
1098:class action lawsuits
693:Canadian contract law
61:Abstraction principle
2117:Offer and acceptance
2054:320 F.2d 445
1366:District of Columbia
1348:proprietary estoppel
1265:(1978), Harry was a
1083:contract of adhesion
961:(sometimes known as
879:Specific performance
770:Equitable conversion
522:Related areas of law
421:Specific performance
271:Choice of law clause
236:Contract of adhesion
150:Culpa in contrahendo
56:Meeting of the minds
51:Offer and acceptance
2690:Promissory estoppel
2575:Cancelling Contract
1984: (30 July 1974)
1937:Harry v. Kreutziger
1747:Bridgewater v Leahy
1263:Harry v. Kreutziger
969:) is a doctrine in
826:Bona fide purchaser
747:Equitable doctrines
686:UNIDROIT Principles
460:Promissory estoppel
340:Privity of contract
293:New York Convention
253:UNIDROIT Principles
96:Collateral contract
91:Implication-in-fact
76:Invitation to treat
2753:Equitable defenses
2617:Stoddard v. Martin
2592:Sherwood v. Walker
2502:McMichael v. Price
2318:Kirksey v. Kirksey
2221:Specht v. Netscape
2109:Contract formation
1382:liquidated damages
1378:unilateral mistake
1343:constructive trust
1254:concurring opinion
1038:arbitration clause
1000:superior knowledge
900:Equitable interest
859:Declaratory relief
854:Constructive trust
849:Account of profits
840:Equitable remedies
506:Duty of good faith
403:Fundamental breach
369:Breach of contract
298:UNCITRAL Model Law
262:Dispute resolution
247:Contra proferentem
241:Integration clause
215:Exculpatory clause
2732:
2731:
2728:
2727:
2719:Britton v. Turner
2710:Unjust enrichment
2674:
2673:
2635:Misrepresentation
2570:
2569:
2513:Statute of frauds
2459:
2458:
1423:: Exception (3).
1290:England and Wales
1278:England and Wales
1018:is regarded as a
1012:misrepresentation
959:Unconscionability
956:
955:
905:History of equity
895:Court of Chancery
800:Unconscionability
741:
740:
584:England and Wales
492:Duties of parties
483:Negotiorum gestio
472:Unjust enrichment
193:Statute of frauds
142:Unconscionability
114:Misrepresentation
71:Mirror image rule
2765:
2686:
2685:
2658:Laidlaw v. Organ
2579:
2578:
2527:Buffaloe v. Hart
2515:(written) &
2472:Illusory promise
2468:
2467:
2422:Hawkins v. McGee
2409:Implied warranty
2113:
2112:
2095:
2088:
2081:
2072:
2071:
2066:
2063:
2057:
2051:
2043:
2037:
2025:
2019:
2009:
2003:
1991:
1985:
1973:
1967:
1966:
1954:
1948:
1934:
1928:
1927:
1925:
1924:
1900:
1894:
1893:
1891:
1890:
1868:
1862:
1859:
1853:
1850:
1844:
1841:
1835:
1834:
1832:
1831:
1820:
1814:
1813:
1801:
1790:
1782:
1776:
1768:
1762:
1744:
1738:
1722:
1716:
1701:("Voyager case")
1695:
1689:
1688:
1670:
1664:
1663:
1643:
1637:
1619:
1613:
1593:
1584:
1564:
1553:
1533:
1524:
1518:
1510:
1504:
1493:
1472:
1471:
1470:2598 (2021).
1465:
1457:
1416:Liability waiver
1411:Implied warranty
1231:lawsuit against
1197:bargaining power
1024:question of fact
975:bargaining power
948:
941:
934:
910:Maxims of equity
757:
743:
742:
733:
726:
719:
561:China (mainland)
530:Conflict of laws
393:Efficient breach
388:Exclusion clause
188:Illusory promise
171:Impracticability
33:
19:
18:
2773:
2772:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2738:
2737:
2735:
2733:
2724:
2704:
2670:
2665:Smith v. Bolles
2629:
2604:
2566:
2539:
2507:
2455:
2403:
2374:
2351:
2325:Angel v. Murray
2304:Hamer v. Sidway
2289:
2197:
2177:
2159:
2104:
2099:
2069:
2064:
2060:
2045:
2044:
2040:
2026:
2022:
2010:
2006:
1992:
1988:
1974:
1970:
1955:
1951:
1945:Court of Appeal
1941:1978 CanLII 393
1935:
1931:
1922:
1920:
1901:
1897:
1888:
1886:
1869:
1865:
1860:
1856:
1851:
1847:
1842:
1838:
1829:
1827:
1821:
1817:
1802:
1793:
1783:
1779:
1769:
1765:
1745:
1741:
1723:
1719:
1696:
1692:
1685:
1671:
1667:
1660:
1644:
1640:
1620:
1616:
1597:Louth v Diprose
1594:
1587:
1565:
1556:
1534:
1527:
1512:
1511:
1507:
1494:
1475:
1458:
1451:
1447:
1439:Undue influence
1428:Moffat v Moffat
1395:
1356:
1286:
1280:
1209:choice of court
1187:
1153:Blomley v Ryan,
1142:Louth v Diprose
1116:
1111:
1020:question of law
995:
952:
805:Undue influence
785:Knowing receipt
737:
708:
580:United Kingdom
543:By jurisdiction
17:
12:
11:
5:
2771:
2761:
2760:
2755:
2750:
2730:
2729:
2726:
2725:
2723:
2722:
2714:
2712:
2706:
2705:
2703:
2702:
2694:
2692:
2683:
2680:Quasi-contract
2676:
2675:
2672:
2671:
2669:
2668:
2661:
2654:
2647:
2639:
2637:
2631:
2630:
2628:
2627:
2620:
2612:
2610:
2606:
2605:
2603:
2602:
2595:
2587:
2585:
2576:
2572:
2571:
2568:
2567:
2565:
2564:
2557:
2549:
2547:
2545:Unconscionable
2541:
2540:
2538:
2537:
2534:Foman v. Davis
2530:
2522:
2520:
2517:Parol evidence
2509:
2508:
2506:
2505:
2498:
2491:
2484:
2476:
2474:
2465:
2461:
2460:
2457:
2456:
2454:
2453:
2446:
2439:
2432:
2425:
2417:
2415:
2405:
2404:
2402:
2401:
2394:
2388:
2386:
2376:
2375:
2373:
2372:
2367:
2365:Lucy v. Zehmer
2361:
2359:
2353:
2352:
2350:
2349:
2342:
2335:
2328:
2321:
2314:
2307:
2299:
2297:
2291:
2290:
2288:
2287:
2280:
2273:
2266:
2259:
2252:
2245:
2238:
2231:
2224:
2216:
2214:
2199:
2198:
2196:
2195:
2187:
2185:
2179:
2178:
2176:
2175:
2169:
2167:
2161:
2160:
2158:
2157:
2150:
2143:
2136:
2129:
2121:
2119:
2110:
2106:
2105:
2098:
2097:
2090:
2083:
2075:
2068:
2067:
2058:
2038:
2020:
2004:
1986:
1968:
1949:
1929:
1895:
1863:
1854:
1845:
1836:
1815:
1791:
1777:
1763:
1739:
1717:
1690:
1683:
1665:
1658:
1638:
1614:
1585:
1568:Blomley v Ryan
1554:
1525:
1505:
1473:
1448:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1436:
1434:Non est factum
1431:
1424:
1418:
1413:
1408:
1403:
1394:
1391:
1355:
1352:
1308:line of credit
1282:Main article:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1258:
1257:
1186:
1183:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1149:Blomley v Ryan
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1079:
1075:
1022:rather than a
994:
991:
979:unconscionable
954:
953:
951:
950:
943:
936:
928:
925:
924:
923:
922:
917:
912:
907:
902:
897:
889:
888:
884:
883:
882:
881:
876:
871:
866:
861:
856:
851:
843:
842:
836:
835:
834:
833:
828:
820:
819:
815:
814:
813:
812:
807:
802:
797:
792:
787:
782:
777:
772:
764:
763:
759:
758:
750:
749:
739:
738:
736:
735:
728:
721:
713:
710:
709:
707:
706:
696:
691:6 Specific to
689:
682:
671:
668:
665:
660:1 Specific to
657:
654:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
641:
636:
623:
618:
610:
609:
601:
600:
599:
598:
593:
592:
591:
586:
578:
573:
568:
563:
558:
553:
545:
544:
540:
539:
538:
537:
535:Commercial law
532:
524:
523:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
503:
494:
493:
489:
488:
487:
486:
479:
474:
469:
466:Quantum meruit
462:
454:
453:
447:
446:
445:
444:
439:
438:
437:
423:
415:
414:
408:
407:
406:
405:
400:
395:
390:
385:
380:
372:
371:
365:
364:
363:
362:
357:
352:
347:
342:
334:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
314:
313:
312:
302:
301:
300:
295:
285:
284:
283:
273:
265:
264:
258:
257:
256:
255:
250:
243:
238:
233:
231:Parol evidence
225:
224:
223:Interpretation
220:
219:
218:
217:
212:
207:
202:
199:Non est factum
195:
190:
185:
180:
175:
174:
173:
168:
163:
153:
146:
145:
144:
130:
121:
116:
108:
107:
101:
100:
99:
98:
93:
88:
83:
78:
73:
68:
63:
58:
53:
48:
40:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2770:
2759:
2756:
2754:
2751:
2749:
2746:
2745:
2743:
2736:
2721:
2720:
2716:
2715:
2713:
2711:
2707:
2701:
2700:
2696:
2695:
2693:
2691:
2687:
2684:
2681:
2677:
2667:
2666:
2662:
2660:
2659:
2655:
2653:
2652:
2648:
2646:
2645:
2641:
2640:
2638:
2636:
2632:
2626:
2625:
2621:
2619:
2618:
2614:
2613:
2611:
2607:
2601:
2600:
2596:
2594:
2593:
2589:
2588:
2586:
2584:
2580:
2577:
2573:
2563:
2562:
2558:
2556:
2555:
2551:
2550:
2548:
2546:
2542:
2536:
2535:
2531:
2529:
2528:
2524:
2523:
2521:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2504:
2503:
2499:
2497:
2496:
2492:
2490:
2489:
2485:
2483:
2482:
2478:
2477:
2475:
2473:
2469:
2466:
2462:
2452:
2451:
2447:
2445:
2444:
2440:
2438:
2437:
2433:
2431:
2430:
2426:
2424:
2423:
2419:
2418:
2416:
2414:
2413:caveat emptor
2410:
2406:
2400:
2399:
2395:
2393:
2390:
2389:
2387:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2371:
2368:
2366:
2363:
2362:
2360:
2358:
2354:
2348:
2347:
2343:
2341:
2340:
2336:
2334:
2333:
2329:
2327:
2326:
2322:
2320:
2319:
2315:
2313:
2312:
2308:
2306:
2305:
2301:
2300:
2298:
2296:
2295:Consideration
2292:
2286:
2285:
2281:
2279:
2278:
2274:
2272:
2271:
2267:
2265:
2264:
2260:
2258:
2257:
2253:
2251:
2250:
2246:
2244:
2243:
2239:
2237:
2236:
2232:
2230:
2229:
2225:
2223:
2222:
2218:
2217:
2215:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2194:
2193:
2189:
2188:
2186:
2184:
2180:
2174:
2171:
2170:
2168:
2166:
2162:
2156:
2155:
2151:
2149:
2148:
2144:
2142:
2141:
2137:
2135:
2134:
2130:
2128:
2127:
2123:
2122:
2120:
2118:
2114:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2096:
2091:
2089:
2084:
2082:
2077:
2076:
2073:
2062:
2055:
2050:
2049:
2042:
2035:
2031:
2030:
2024:
2017:
2013:
2008:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1990:
1983:
1979:
1978:
1972:
1964:
1960:
1953:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1933:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1899:
1884:
1880:
1879:
1874:
1867:
1858:
1849:
1840:
1826:
1819:
1811:
1807:
1800:
1798:
1796:
1788:
1787:
1781:
1774:
1773:
1767:
1760:
1756:
1753:, (1998) 194
1752:
1748:
1743:
1736:
1733:, (2003) 214
1732:
1728:
1727:
1721:
1714:
1710:
1707:, (1990) 170
1706:
1702:
1700:
1694:
1686:
1680:
1676:
1669:
1661:
1659:1-86287-281-3
1655:
1651:
1650:
1642:
1635:
1631:
1628:, (1995) 183
1627:
1623:
1618:
1611:
1607:
1604:, (1992) 175
1603:
1599:
1598:
1592:
1590:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1563:
1561:
1559:
1551:
1547:
1544:, (1983) 151
1543:
1539:
1538:
1532:
1530:
1522:
1517:
1516:
1509:
1503:
1499:
1498:
1492:
1490:
1488:
1486:
1484:
1482:
1480:
1478:
1469:
1468:Harv. L. Rev.
1464:
1456:
1454:
1449:
1440:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1422:
1419:
1417:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1390:
1388:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1367:
1363:
1362:
1354:United States
1351:
1349:
1344:
1339:
1337:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1321:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1300:
1294:
1291:
1285:
1271:
1268:
1267:First Nations
1264:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1221:Uber v Heller
1218:
1217:
1216:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1205:choice of law
1202:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1182:
1180:
1172:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1145:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1129:
1127:
1126:
1121:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1021:
1015:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
990:
988:
987:consideration
984:
983:unenforceable
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
949:
944:
942:
937:
935:
930:
929:
927:
926:
921:
918:
916:
913:
911:
908:
906:
903:
901:
898:
896:
893:
892:
891:
890:
886:
885:
880:
877:
875:
872:
870:
869:Rectification
867:
865:
862:
860:
857:
855:
852:
850:
847:
846:
845:
844:
841:
838:
837:
832:
829:
827:
824:
823:
822:
821:
817:
816:
811:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
796:
793:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
771:
768:
767:
766:
765:
761:
760:
756:
752:
751:
748:
745:
744:
734:
729:
727:
722:
720:
715:
714:
712:
711:
705:
701:
697:
694:
690:
687:
683:
680:
676:
672:
669:
666:
664:jurisdictions
663:
659:
658:
656:
655:
651:
650:
645:
642:
640:
637:
635:
631:
627:
624:
622:
619:
617:
614:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
602:
597:
596:United States
594:
590:
587:
585:
582:
581:
579:
577:
574:
572:
569:
567:
564:
562:
559:
557:
554:
552:
549:
548:
547:
546:
542:
541:
536:
533:
531:
528:
527:
526:
525:
521:
520:
513:
510:
509:
507:
504:
501:
498:
497:
496:
495:
491:
490:
485:
484:
480:
478:
475:
473:
470:
468:
467:
463:
461:
458:
457:
456:
455:
452:
449:
448:
443:
440:
436:
435:penal damages
432:
429:
428:
427:
426:Money damages
424:
422:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
410:
409:
404:
401:
399:
396:
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
381:
379:
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
367:
366:
361:
358:
356:
353:
351:
348:
346:
343:
341:
338:
337:
336:
335:
331:
330:
323:
320:
319:
318:
315:
311:
308:
307:
306:
303:
299:
296:
294:
291:
290:
289:
286:
282:
279:
278:
277:
274:
272:
269:
268:
267:
266:
263:
260:
259:
254:
251:
249:
248:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
221:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
205:Unclean hands
203:
201:
200:
196:
194:
191:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
176:
172:
169:
167:
166:Impossibility
164:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:Force majeure
154:
152:
151:
147:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:public policy
134:
131:
129:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
103:
102:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
86:Consideration
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
67:
64:
62:
59:
57:
54:
52:
49:
47:
44:
43:
42:
41:
37:
36:
32:
28:
27:
24:
21:
20:
2748:Contract law
2734:
2717:
2697:
2663:
2656:
2649:
2642:
2622:
2615:
2597:
2590:
2559:
2552:
2532:
2525:
2500:
2493:
2486:
2479:
2448:
2441:
2434:
2427:
2420:
2396:
2344:
2337:
2330:
2323:
2316:
2309:
2302:
2282:
2275:
2268:
2261:
2254:
2247:
2240:
2233:
2226:
2219:
2190:
2183:Mailbox rule
2152:
2145:
2138:
2131:
2124:
2061:
2046:
2041:
2027:
2023:
2011:
2007:
1993:
1989:
1975:
1971:
1952:
1936:
1932:
1921:. Retrieved
1908:
1898:
1887:. Retrieved
1876:
1866:
1857:
1848:
1839:
1828:. Retrieved
1818:
1809:
1805:
1784:
1780:
1770:
1766:
1761:(Australia).
1746:
1742:
1724:
1720:
1697:
1693:
1684:0-86758261-8
1674:
1668:
1648:
1641:
1636:(Australia).
1621:
1617:
1612:(Australia).
1595:
1583:(Australia).
1575:, (1956) 99
1566:
1552:(Australia).
1535:
1513:
1508:
1495:
1426:
1398:
1371:
1359:
1357:
1340:
1335:
1324:
1322:
1317:Lord Denning
1297:
1295:
1287:
1262:
1250:class action
1245:
1229:class action
1220:
1190:
1188:
1178:
1177:
1165:
1160:
1158:
1152:
1148:
1146:
1141:
1136:
1134:
1130:
1123:
1118:The leading
1117:
1087:
1061:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1027:
1016:
996:
978:
971:contract law
962:
958:
957:
799:
639:Criminal law
621:Property law
576:Saudi Arabia
481:
464:
245:
197:
148:
141:
66:Posting rule
23:Contract law
2384:3rd parties
1715:(Australia)
1502:2020 SCC 16
1331:bridge loan
1096:and forbid
1094:arbitration
1068:boilerplate
1042:gig workers
1032:(2020) the
831:Clean hands
810:Subrogation
795:Marshalling
477:Restitution
288:Arbitration
2742:Categories
2682:obligation
2609:Illegality
2213:agreements
2211:Browsewrap
2203:Shrinkwrap
1923:2020-09-17
1889:2020-09-17
1830:2022-10-14
1759:High Court
1713:High Court
1634:High Court
1610:High Court
1581:High Court
1550:High Court
1445:References
1372:Under the
1270:Aboriginal
1225:gig worker
1223:(2020), a
1120:Australian
1109:By country
1072:warranties
1040:requiring
874:Rescission
864:Injunction
679:pandectist
662:common law
442:Rescission
350:Delegation
345:Assignment
133:Illegality
81:Firm offer
2207:Clickwrap
1114:Australia
1036:found an
967:Australia
920:Trust law
762:Doctrines
681:tradition
551:Australia
398:Deviation
305:Mediation
38:Formation
1917:Archived
1883:Archived
1878:CBC News
1393:See also
1304:mortgage
1122:case is
1102:illusory
993:Overview
818:Defences
780:Hotchpot
775:Estoppel
644:Evidence
616:Tort law
589:Scotland
412:Remedies
355:Novation
178:Hardship
105:Defences
46:Capacity
2583:Mistake
2380:Privity
1963:1124922
1939:,
1500:,
915:Tracing
887:Related
634:estates
566:Ireland
183:Set-off
124:Threats
119:Mistake
2382:&
2052:,
1961:
1789:(Cth).
1681:
1656:
1519:,
1466:, 134
1460:Note,
1406:Duress
1185:Canada
1179:Amadio
1137:Amadio
1135:While
1008:deceit
790:Laches
632:, and
630:trusts
604:Other
556:Canada
2032:
2014:
1998:
1980:
1812:: 47.
1775:(NSW)
1757:457,
1749:
1729:
1711:394,
1703:
1624:
1608:621,
1600:
1571:
1548:447,
1540:
1211:, or
1004:fraud
652:Notes
626:Wills
608:areas
571:India
433:, or
383:Cover
1959:SSRN
1679:ISBN
1654:ISBN
1242:void
1233:Uber
1006:and
135:and
126:and
1755:CLR
1737:51.
1735:CLR
1709:CLR
1630:CLR
1606:CLR
1577:CLR
1546:CLR
1261:In
1219:In
965:in
606:law
2744::
2411:,
2209:,
2205:,
1915:.
1911:.
1907:.
1881:.
1875:.
1810:17
1808:.
1794:^
1588:^
1557:^
1528:^
1476:^
1452:^
1389:.
1350:.
1207:,
628:,
2094:e
2087:t
2080:v
1965:.
1926:.
1892:.
1833:.
1687:.
1662:.
947:e
940:t
933:v
732:e
725:t
718:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
