|
|
此文章由 Linda-奔跑中 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Linda-奔跑中 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
原帖由 hturtklat 于 2012-6-29 21:27 发表 
首先，多谢楼上那位热心的朋友联系了华人同盟，如果能把定金要回来最好了。
如果楼主要不回来的话：
可以参考一个案例，和你这种情况比较相似，我把它抄下来，供你参考一下。
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd V Amadio (1983)
Mr and Mrs Amadio guaranteed their son’s business loan from the Commercial Bank of Australia. To provide the guarantee, they effectively provided the bank with promises to repay and a mortgage over their home, which meant that if their son did not repay the loan as required, then they would become fully liable. The son did not repay the loan and the bank sought full payment from Mr and Mrs Amadio. The case went to court and , on final appeal, Mr and Mrs Amadio found themselves in the High Court of Australia. The high Court was very interested in the facts and in a majority decision (3:1) found in favour of Mr and Mrs Amadio. In so doing, it created the modern concept of “unconscionable conduct" in relation to contracts ( especially written and signed contracts)
Fact that the Curt found indicative of unconscionable conduct included the following:
1. Mr and Mrs Amadio spoke and understood little English ( inability to understand the contract) 和你母亲的情况一样，不懂英语。
2. Mr and Mrs Amadio did no seek independent advice and no such advice was suggested by the bank ( taking advantage of power) 你母亲也是糊涂着签的合同，没有人解释合同。
3. The bank was aware that the son’s business was in a difficult financial position at the time he sought the guarantee and was aware that Mr and Mrs Amadio did not know this (misuse of power relationship and withholding relevant information) and 和你的情况不相关。
4. The bank did not advise Mr and Mrs Amadio of the true extent of the guarantee and that their liability was unlimited. Mr and Mrs Amadio believed the liability was limited to $50,000
这个案例记下。
所以现在凡是要房贷，要做 family pledge的，统统要求 seek independent legal advice，一些客户还嫌麻烦，哈哈。 |
|
最初的梦想 - 三菱pajero VRX - 送LG的结婚十周年礼物 (2013-2-10) leeshine 
楼主:小青年
发表于 2012-6-30 09:59
