Summary Of Bridgewater Vs. Leahy Case

An interview was conducted with Ms. Jones in August 2015, regarding an issue that has arisen between herself and her cousin Will. The issue is in regards to a necklace that she claims was given to her by her Aunty (Will’s mum, Nell) before she passed away. However, Will is claiming that Ms. Jones tricked the deceased into giving her the necklace.

1. FACTS
1.1. Please refer to the attached letter for the facts of the issue.
2. LEGAL ISSUES, ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT
2.1 Where unconscionable conduct has taken place during the negotiation of a contract an application may be made to have the contract set aside.
2.2 In equity relief may be granted for unconscionable conduct when one party is in a position of “special

As mentioned earlier if Will is successful in proving the elements of unconscionable conduct onus is then transferred to Ms. Jones to prove that the transaction was just, fair and reasonable.
3.2. A case that may be considered in deciding this is Bridgewater v Leahy. The deceased initiated the transaction between himself and the plaintiff, and it was said that as the deceased greatly admires and fully trusted his nephew (the defendant) and considered him a son. Furthermore, the deceased had previously made a comment to his neighbour hoping his nephew would buy him out and that he felt as though his nephew was entitled to it. Therefore, the manner was said to be entirely consistent with his strongly felt personal wishes.
3.3. Therefore, in order for Ms. Jones to be able to argue that the transaction was just, fair and reasonable she would have to provide evidence that Nell was in fact of sound mind, and knew the worth of the necklace. Additionally any witnesses that Nell may have spoken to about giving the necklace to Ms. Jones would also be favourable. Although, it may be argued that Nell was emotionally dependent on Ms. Jones the court may still consider the transaction as just, fair and reasonable if Ms. Jones can prove that Nell had the ability to make the transaction at her own will. It is evident from what Ms. Jones has informed us that her and her aunty Nell were very close and if more information and evidence could be obtained it would be clear that Ms. Jones

REMEDIES
4.1. It must be made clear that equity treats an unconscionable transaction as voidable, not void, therefore the innocent parties will need to seek remedies and the court will decide on what they see as just and fair.
4.2. Relief against unconscionable conduct will be granted to prevent the stronger party from attempting to enforce or retain the benefits from the transaction when it is against equity and good conscience. The most common remedy is rescission of the contract.
4.3. However, rescission may be denied in a case where the parties are unable to be returned to the positions they were previously in. Will acquired an interest in the value of the necklace without being involved in the original transaction through the will that was left by Nell. However he never had the necklace to begin with and Nell was the one who received the $5000, which she had already spent before her death. Therefore, Ms. Jones would be unable to get the $5000 back and by Will obtaining the necklace he would be put in a better position then he originally was.
4.4. Additionally, equitable damages may be awarded to the parties if the court feels it is just and reasonable to do