A reformulated test for unconscionability

• Main Authors: OOI, Vincent, YONG, Walter
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2019
• Subjects: Contract Law; Unconscionability; Equity; Commercial Law; Comparative and Foreign Law; Contracts
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2927; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4885/viewcontent/ReformulatedTest_Unconscionability_sv.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

Apart from its interesting facts, this case, BOM v BOK [2018] SGCA 83, is significant for its rejection of a “broad” doctrine of unconscionability, the existence of which has been a matter of some debate in English law, and which has been accepted in Australia (see Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 C.L.R. 447; (1983) 46 A.L.R. 402). It also proposes a new test for the doctrine of unconscionability that is narrower than Amadio, based on the requirements inCresswell v Potter [1978] 1 W.L.R. 255. The test for unconscionability in English law has been a matter of some debate, with Cresswell v Potter and Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd [1983] 1 W.L.R. 87; [1983] 1 All E.R. 944 adopting different approaches (see Nelson Enonchong (2018) 34 J.C.L. 211). This modern formulation by a Commonwealth apex court provides a comprehensive test for the “narrow” doctrine of unconscionability, and offers the common law a practical alternative test for unconscionability.