Background to Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 The Amadio case is about two elderly migrants, Mr and Mrs Amadio, who were asked to execute a mortgage from the bank by their son Vincenzo Amadio, the purpose being to secure the overdraft of a company which their son owned. Mr and Mrs Amadio agreed to the terms as offered by the bank, believing that the mortgage was to be limited to $50,000 and for six months, however this was not the case. The bank was well aware that Mr and Mrs Amadio had been misinformed regarding the mortgage which they were executing for their son. Soon after, Vincenzo’s company began to deteriorate, and the bank demanded payment from the Amadio’s on the guarantee. When the bank did not receive …show more content…
In this instance, the Amadio’s were seen as being at a ‘special disadvantage’ primarily due to their age, they could not comprehend the English language well and also because of their lack of experience in such matters. The court labelled the banks conduct as unconscionable because of the advantage which was taken of Mr and Mrs Amadio while they were at a special disadvantage and that they were given false information by their son which made them extremely vulnerable. Had Mr Virgo disclosed all information to the Amadio’s, especially when Mr Amadio made the statement which suggested he was not properly informed of the terms of the mortgage, and the Amadio’s understood everything, they would not have been able to take to court the Commercial Bank of Australia on the grounds of unconscionable conduct. The fact that their ‘special disadvantage’ was exploited gave passage for them to receive equitable relief for unconscionable …show more content…
Mr Kakavas’ claim that Crown casino and its employees acted unconscionably was dismissed on the grounds that, unlike Mr and Mrs Amadio in their dispute against the Commercial Bank of Australia, Mr Kakavas suffered from no ‘special advantage’ from which he could have been exploited. Mr Kakavas argued that he had a pathological gambling condition and that the casino knew of this and yet lured him into rampantly spending money, and this meant that he should have been entitled to compensation. Mr Kakavas’ professionally diagnosed pathological gambling addiction was deemed not to have affected his ability to make his own decisions, and that he, at any time could have stopped. In the Amadio case, Mr Virgo became aware that perhaps Mr Amadio did not completely understand the terms of the contract of the mortgage he was executing, and therefore it could be concluded that Mr Virgo on behalf of the bank acted unconsciously. However, in this instance there was no evidence to suggest that Crown was aware of Mr Kakavas’ gambling problem, and that through the use of this knowledge Mr Kakavas was
The article, “The Power of Habit” (chapter 9), by Charles Duhigg, is about Angie Bachmann who was addicted to gambling. It all started one day when she felt so lonely that she decided to go out and play in the nearest casino. Angie started by setting rules just so she would not become addicted. As days went by Angie slowly started to break her rules and gambled more than what she should of have. Angie lost a lot of money. Although, Harrah’s casino would send her free stuff and vacation trips to get Angie to play more. Angie realized that she had a problem with gambling and went away for a time, but she went back to Harrah’s casino when her parents inherit her money. Angie lost all the money that she inherited and started to get loans
The church viewed it as their “vocational interest” to equate gambling with “sin,” thus keeping with the puritan tradition of labeling working-class material desires as immoral (158). The church’s view, however, was a false portrayal of the realities of gambling. Their assertion of gambling being an immoral indulgence, one equal to the “sins” of drinking, smoking, and other such heathenistic entertainments, was, in reality, false. By observing figures from a Royal Commission report taken later in the century, we see that gambling accounted for only 4 percent of total personal expenditure among the working-class (159). This is not to say that gambling did not ruin the lives of the truly obsessed, but the picture of British gambling as presented by both Lawrence and the church portrays the act as being wholly destructive to whoever is unlucky enough to fall into the
INTRODUCTION In Palgo Holdings v Gowans , the High Court considered the distinction between a security in the form of a pawn or pledge and a security in the form of a chattel mortgage. The question was whether section 6 of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 (NSW) (‘the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act’) extended to a business that structured its loan agreements as chattel mortgages. In a four to one majority (Kirby J dissenting) the High Court found that chattel mortgages fell outside the ambit of section 6 of the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act. However, beyond the apparent simplicity of this decision, the reasoning of the majority raises a number of questions.
justice,' said Jim Wheeler, to let this yer young man from Roaring Camp an entire stranger carry away our money.' But a crude sentiment of equity residing in the breasts of those who had been fortunate enough to win from Mr. Oakhurst, overruled this narrow local prejudice.
The casino kept offering different things and after this she was unable to refuse. She was offered anything she wanted, the casino would negotiate any request. At one point Bachmann had walked away from all the gambling, but soon after her parents passed away she returned to the casino and there she was seduced into coming back. After her inheritance, she had told Harrah’s that she was almost out of money, but they told her to come anyway. The casino told her, they would give her a line of credit to start off with. Bachmann ended up borrowing a total of about $125,000. Bachmann eventually lost everything she and her family had, including their family home. Bachmann tried to win back the money she was losing but she wasn't able to. Bachmann wasn't able to repay the money back to the casino and the casino then sued her. Bachmann was then found guilty for her gambling habit. You see if the casino wouldn’t have encouraged Bachmann to continue gambling and offer her money to play it, perhaps she wouldn’t have lost all that she owned. The casino kept seducing her to come in, making it impossible for her to refuse. Bachmann was enjoying all the perks her gambling addiction was able to get
The following essay mentions the legal ramifications by reference of case laws of the decision of the defendant to sell his flat to a third party. This essay mentions the difference between offers and invitation to treats, whilst involving the significance of a counter offer. It also discusses the rules behind revocations and lagged method of communications.
ACCC ‘Court orders corrective ads by Commonwealth Bank’ [internet] Dec 10 2003 http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/420894 Accessed 23/9/2009
... addicted gamblers that they encountered. In Bachmann’s case they allegedly accused the casino for specifically targeting Bachmann by using some of her cravings to get her back into the casino. In my opinion that is totally absurd and a poor excuse for blaming a casino that she went to on a daily basis.
With so much money at stake, the average gambler does not stand a chance. against this big business. The casinos go to every length to analyze what makes a gambler bet, stay longer, and lose as much money as possible. Gamblers who come to casinos with the intention of winning money are habitually disappointed in the snare. As casino crime lord, Meyer Lansky's universal.
...elieve that Ladislaw should not accept the money as evidenced by his relationship with Bulstrode, his relationship with his mother, and his own sense of self.
In Ex Parte Pieters, the applicant is the son of Mr William Emmanuel Pieters. The applicant sought an order of presuming the death of his father to effect payment to him and his siblings of the moneys left by his deceased mother to the father which was credited in his Guardian’s Fund. In Ex Parte Stoter, the applicant is the brother of Clarence Percival Stoter and he applies for an order for the presumption of death of his brother because he was missing for two years.
Gambling provides a person with the opportunity to make in minutes what it might take a lifetime to achieve by working. If you hold the right cards, pick the right machine or roll the dice at the right time, it could be just the lucky break you need. The thought that a big score can be achieved at any moment can be intoxicating at first gambling can be a fun and interesting way to spend the time. But as the old saying goes “it’s all fun and games till someone gets hurt;” comes to my mind. But who gets hurt from gambling? The answer here is everyone in that person’s family, inner circle of friends, fellow employees and the gambler themselves. Gambling problems often cause family members to feel ashamed, hurt, angry, confused and distrustful.
As previously mentioned, the issue at the center of the controversy or debate is morality or ethics. Morality or ethics has been at the heart of controversies regarding gambling because some people consider it as unethical. The consideration of gambling as an immoral act is largely attributed to religious beliefs and stigma of obtaining money relatively for nothing. Moreover, the ethical dilemmas and concerns associated with gambling is brought by the emergence of problem gamblers who account for nearly 2.1 percent of total number of gamblers (Kannon, 2012). Therefore, ethical concerns and dilemmas in gambling are fueled by the inherently sinful attitude about the activities, which generate a classical ethical problem from an individual level
Gambling is a major problem for some people. It can cause people to have major financial issues, health issues, as well as mental health problems. It can become a problem that tears families apart because of the lies that can be told to cover up for the amount of money lost and put people in debt.
If we see, common law treats mortgages likes contracts; here any failure to pay off the mortgage by the stipulated date would result in the mortgaged property being forfeited to the lender. This can be done by the common law doctrine of forfeiture. Through the eyes of equity, if we look at the idea equity of redemption we can see that it reduces the harshness of the law by restraining th...