|
Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of consent based obligations. "Inequality of bargaining power" is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, 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 external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable (i.e., contrary to good conscience) to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences. Considerable controversy is still present over whether "iniquitous pressure" must actually be exercised by a defendant in order for a consent based obligation to be voidable. While it seems clear that in cases of undue influence the pressure need not come from the person who may lose the contract〔e.g. in the case of a husband who pressures his wife to sign a mortgage agreement with a bank, and the bank takes subject to the wife's equitable interest when it is found that her signature was inequitably procured.〕 it is open to debate whether circumstances exist where an obligation should be voidable simply because the person was pressured by circumstances wholly outside a defendant's control. One of the most prominent cases in this area is ''Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy''〔() QB 326〕 where Lord Denning MR advocated that there be a general principle to govern this entire area. He called the concept "inequality of bargaining power", while the American case espousing an equivalent doctrine, ''Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.''〔350 F.2d 445 (C.A. D.C. 1965)〕 termed the issue one of "unconscionability". Note that Lord Denning's approach was later rejected by the House of Lords in ''National Westminster Bank v Morgan'' ==History== *''James v Morgan'' (1663) 83 Eng Rep 323 refused to enforce contract calculating purchase price of horse based upon 2 pence for first nail in horse’s shoes, doubled for each of additional 31 nails. *''Vernon v Bethell'' *''Earl of Chesterfield v Janssen'' (1751) 28 Eng Rep 82, 100, unconscionability "may be apparent from the intrinsic nature and subject of the bargain itself; such as no man in his senses and not under a delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest man would accept on the other; which are unequitable and unconscientious bargains, and of such even the common law take notice . . . .” 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「Unconscionability in English law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|