• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Confused in Words: Unconscionability and the Doctrine of Penalties

    Author(s)
    Baron, Paula
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Baron, Paula D.
    Year published
    2008
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This paper is concerned with the role of unconscionability in the doctrine of penalties. It argues that unconscionability, although clearly a requirement in the Australian doctrine of penalties, is un elusive concept that has given rise to much confusion. This is because of the general uncertainty of the doctrine, ambiguity in the meaning of the term 'unconscionahility' and uncertainty as to whether unconscionability is a separate requirement in determining whether a liquidated damages provision is a penalty. This paper argues that if unconscionahility is to continue us a requirement in judicial determination of ...
    View more >
    This paper is concerned with the role of unconscionability in the doctrine of penalties. It argues that unconscionability, although clearly a requirement in the Australian doctrine of penalties, is un elusive concept that has given rise to much confusion. This is because of the general uncertainty of the doctrine, ambiguity in the meaning of the term 'unconscionahility' and uncertainty as to whether unconscionability is a separate requirement in determining whether a liquidated damages provision is a penalty. This paper argues that if unconscionahility is to continue us a requirement in judicial determination of penalties, the courts should maintain a robust and relatively narrow notion of unconscionability. This is because the very purpose of liquidated damages clauses is to avoid uncertainty and litigation and to minimise the likelihood and costs of disputes. Ironically, the continued uncertainty surrounding the concept of 'unconscionability', and therefore the doctrine of penalties as a whole - means that 1iquidated damages c1auses actually perpetuate, rather than avoid, these problems
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Monash University Law Review
    Volume
    34
    Issue
    2
    Publisher URI
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2008/
    Subject
    Commercial and Contract Law
    Law
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/26766
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander