In Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 which of the following was NOT a reason why the bank was considered to have acted unconscionably?
A) The bank took advantage of the Amadios' special disabilities.
B) It did not insist that the parents obtain separate independent advice.
C) The bank exercised economic duress.
D) The bank did not explain the real financial position of the son whom his parents were trying to help.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q34: In which of the following cases was
Q35: In order to succeed in an action
Q36: To establish duress,the onus is on the
Q37: Which of the following situations appears to
Q38: Which of the following situations appears to
Q39: How and why has the common law
Q40: Which of the following situations will NOT
Q41: Under the Australian Consumer Law,unconscionability is the
Q42: The test for unconscionability is the special
Q46: Explain the difference between duress and undue
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents