The Amadio Case: Background
In the given case, Mr. and Mrs. Amadio relied upon three causes of action while challenging the mortgage guarantee contract they had signed (Babie 2016). They were:
- Misrepresentation was madeby Vincenzo Amadio.
- Unconscionable conductwas made by Vincenzo, and the bank, and
- Undue influence, as they entered the contract on the basis of the relationship of trust with Vincenzo, their son.
In the given case, the Appeal Court reversed the trial judge’s decision and held that the bank owed liablity to the Amadios for three reasons. Two of the reasons that the court gave were:
- The bank had an obligation towards the respondents to reveal the true position of the account, and
- The transaction was unconscionably done, against which equity would give relief.
Justice Gibbs, in his judgment, ruled that banks have no obligation to disclose the state of the account to a guarantor except in a certain circumstance. He ruled that the requirement of the bank, taking a guarantee, to disclose all facts to a surety arises only when something, between the principal debtor and bank, has taken place, that was not naturally expected and where it particularly affects the degree of the surety’s responsibility (Thampapillai, Bozzi and Matthew 2015).
The two circumstances, in the given case, that convinced Justice Gibbs that the bank should have made such disclosures to the Amadios were:
- Firstly, the arrangement between the bank and Vincenzo Amadio, on the company’s behalf, which was an evidence that suggested that the arrangements were to be made within a short time and did not mention the time of clearance.
- Secondly, the bank did not dishonor the cheques and made itself a party to the company’s selective dishonor for maintaining the façade of prosperity that the company had created, although insolvent, where such façade may well had deceived the respondents, which the bank should have expected.
According to the conclusion made by Justice Gibbs, the above mentioned two circumstances constituted misrepresentation. These two circumstances constituted the torts of unconscionable conduct and the tort of misrepresentation (Goldberger 2016). It is so, because there was a failure on the bank part’s to disclose a material part of the transaction between the bank and Vincenzo Amadio.
According to the decision of Justice Manson, he concluded that the respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Amadio were entitled to receive relief, based on the ground of the bank being guilty of unconscionable conduct in obtaining the mortgage guarantee execution, by the respondents. It is so because the Amadios had were not conscious about their disadvantage in the mortgage contract and Vincenzo Amadio created the contract, even though he was aware of such disadvantage.
Three ways that showed gross inequality of bargaining power according to Justice Mason:
- The Ambadios lacked the judging ability as to whether entering into the transaction was in their own interest, with regards to their desire to help their son.
- The Ambadios’ reliance in their son, who, for his self interests, urged his parents to provide with the mortgage guarantee to the bank, misleading them about the company’s actual position.
- The Amadios were Italians, aged 76 and 71 respectively, with a limited command in English, lacking experience in the field of business, unlike Vincenzo and the bank.
Justice Mason- undue unconsciousness and undue influence differ, as in the later, the innocent party’s will is not voluntary and independent as it is overborne and in the former the disadvantageous party’s will is the result of such disadvantage, which the other party, unconscientiously, takes advantage of.
Justice Deane- undue influence looks into the consent’s quality or the assent of the weaker party and unconscionable dealings on the other hand, looks into the conduct of the stronger party, for enforcing or retaining, the benefit of, dealing with a person, under a special disability, where it is inconsistent with equity or good conscience that he should do so.
As the Amadios were made to provide the mortgage guarantee by their son, Vincenzo, who created the contract with the Amadios, even though he was aware of the disadvantage to his parents, who were noct conscious about the disadvantage, on entering the contract, the tort of unconscionable conduct will apply. On the other hand, as the Amadios entered into the contract for helping their son, it is deemed to be entered into based on the relationship of trust and involuntarily. Hence, it attracts the tort of undue influence as well (Pearson 2017).
According to Justice Dawson, a bank can be held liable to a guarantor under the circumstance, where the guarantor had been induced to provide guarantee, as a result of misrepresentation, and the bank had notice of such misrepresentation or ought to have knowledge of the occurrence of such misrepresentation in future (Andrews 2016). Unless, the bank had no such notice or knowledge about the misrepresentation, it cannot be held liable.
References:
Babie, P.T., 2016. South Australia: Is Native Title a Defence to a Mortgagee’s Right to Possession?
Thampapillai, D., Tan, V., Bozzi, C. and Matthew, A., 2015. Australian Commercial Law. Cambridge University Press.
Goldberger, J., 2016. Unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms. Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia, 30(2), p.17.
Pearson, G., 2017. Further challenges for Australian consumer law. In Consumer Law and Socioeconomic Development (pp. 287-305). Springer, Cham.
Andrews, N., 2016. Misrepresentation and Coercion. In Arbitration and Contract Law (pp. 189-203). Springer, Cham.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
