DSpace Repository

Meaningless Oppression and the Taint of Unconscionability in GE Custodians v Bartle

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Young-Drew, James
dc.date.accessioned 2012-06-21T02:51:48Z
dc.date.accessioned 2022-11-01T21:42:33Z
dc.date.available 2012-06-21T02:51:48Z
dc.date.available 2022-11-01T21:42:33Z
dc.date.copyright 2011
dc.date.issued 2011
dc.identifier.uri https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/27991
dc.description.abstract Contracts are the lifeblood of trade and commercial endeavour. The capacity to create and uphold legally enforceable agreements is essential to economic efficiency. Sanctity of contract and reliability of contractual obligations are paramount to any system of law. Mirroring these considerations, of course, are equally important principles of fairness which can prevent courts from enforcing contracts. Either way, a “function of the law is to provide clear facilitative boundaries for commercial activity”. To achieve this purpose, the law of contract must strive to be unambiguous, predictable and certain. en_NZ
dc.language en_NZ
dc.language.iso en_NZ
dc.publisher Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
dc.subject Unconscionable contracts en_NZ
dc.subject Consumer credit law en_NZ
dc.title Meaningless Oppression and the Taint of Unconscionability in GE Custodians v Bartle en_NZ
dc.type Text en_NZ
vuwschema.contributor.unit School of Law en_NZ
vuwschema.subject.marsden 390104 Commercial and contract law en_NZ
vuwschema.type.vuw Bachelors Research Paper or Project en_NZ
thesis.degree.discipline Law en_NZ
thesis.degree.name Bachelor of Laws with Honours en_NZ

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


My Account