Publication Type
Case note/Digest
Version
submittedVersion
Publication Date
6-2019
Abstract
Apart from its interesting facts, this case, BOM v BOK [2018] SGCA 83, is significant for its rejection of a “broad” doctrine of unconscionability, the existence of which has been a matter of some debate in English law, and which has been accepted in Australia (see Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 C.L.R. 447; (1983) 46 A.L.R. 402). It also proposes a new test for the doctrine of unconscionability that is narrower than Amadio, based on the requirements inCresswell v Potter [1978] 1 W.L.R. 255. The test for unconscionability in English law has been a matter of some debate, with Cresswell v Potter and Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd [1983] 1 W.L.R. 87; [1983] 1 All E.R. 944 adopting different approaches (see Nelson Enonchong (2018) 34 J.C.L. 211). This modern formulation by a Commonwealth apex court provides a comprehensive test for the “narrow” doctrine of unconscionability, and offers the common law a practical alternative test for unconscionability.
Keywords
Contract Law, Unconscionability, Equity
Discipline
Commercial Law | Comparative and Foreign Law | Contracts
Research Areas
Private Law
Publication
Law Quarterly Review
Volume
135
First Page
400
Last Page
405
ISSN
0023-933X
Publisher
Sweet and Maxwell
Citation
OOI, Vincent and YONG, Walter.
A reformulated test for unconscionability. (2019). Law Quarterly Review. 135, 400-405.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2927
Copyright Owner and License
Authors
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.