|
''Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd'' was an important case decided in the High Court of Australia on 6 August 1998.〔(【引用サイトリンク】work=Australasian Legal Information Institute )〕 The case determined the circumstances under which it is unconscionable for a lender to enforce a transaction against a wife. It is considered a very important case in Australian Equity (law), as it continues to be the leading case in spouse-surety cases. ==Facts== In 1979, Jean Balharry Garcia and her then husband, Fabio Garcia, executed a mortgage over their jointly owned matrimonial home in favour of National Australia Bank. Between 1979 and 1987, Jean Balharry Garcia also signed several guarantees. These documents were signed to secure a loan that was made to Fabio Garcia for use in his company, Citizens Gold Bullion Exchange Pty Limited. The couple separated in 1988, and in the following year, Fabio Garcia's company wound up. In 1990, Jean Balharry Garcia commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking declarations that the various documents were of no force or effect, and void. The trial judge applied the rule in ''Yerkey v Jones〔 " (Yerkey v Jones ) " 1939 HCA 3; (1939) 63 CLR 649 (6 March 1939)〕 and granted a declaration that none of the guarantees which the appellant had given bound her. On appeal, the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that the rule in ''Yerkey v Jones'' should no longer be applied as it had been overruled by ''Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio''. 〔("Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio" ) "() HCA 14; (1983) 151 CLR 447 (12 May 1983) 〕 The appellant was granted leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|