代写-单方面变更合同权利的不公平问题

在本篇代写-单方面变更合同权利的不公平问题中,单方更改合同的权利意味着只有一方可以根据自己的需要更改合同条款。除此之外,其他一些被认为有问题的条款是关于合同终止的提前终止费问题,有限责任条款或无责任条款,无理由终止协议的权利等。首先要理解的是,合同的一方是否比另一方处于不利地位,这种不利地位是否会导致他们之间的不平等。如果是这样的话,那么就可以说有优势的一方做了不合理的行为。其次,把正在考虑的问题是,是否强大的政党意识到特殊的缺点,是给予他们,因为合同中不合理的行为,第三,知道他们得到好处,应该强势的一方订立合同与较弱的一方。接下来有关代写-单方面变更合同权利的不公平问题分析如下:

The ACCC and the ASIC clearly state that some terms are unfair in contracts. The right to vary a contract unilaterally is considered an unfair term. The right to unilaterally vary a contract means that only one of the party would be able to make changes to the provisions of a contract as they see fit. In addition to this some of the other terms that are considered to be problematic are that of the early termination fees issues with respect to contract termination, the limited or no liability clause, the right to terminate agreement with no cause etc.
According to the section 20 (1), a person in trade should not engage in a conduct that is considered as being unconscionable. The case based on which unconscionable contract is understood is that of the Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR. Now in this case, three questions were asked to understand if there was unconscionable conduct.
Primarily, it is to be understood if one of the parties suffers a disadvantage compared to the other party in the contract and if this disadvantage is to such an extent that it would cause considerable inequality between them. If such is the case, then it could be said that the party which has an advantage has acted in unconscionable conduct. Secondly, the question brought under consideration is that of whether the party that is stronger is aware of the special disadvantage that is afforded to them because of the unconscionable actions in the contract and thirdly, knowing that they are getting a benefit, should the stronger party enter into a contract with the weaker party. Furthermore, the conduct in question could be held unconscionable even if there is no proper victim at hand. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd (2013) ATPR 42-429, suggests that the action must be found to be unfair and unreasonable and in most situations would also hold some moral pejorative.

中国留学生英语论文不会写,可以找新西兰高阶论文代写Advanced Thesis平台机构,此平台帮助解决中国留学生的论文写作难题,为留学生提供新西兰代写、essay代写、assignment代写等论文服务,保证论文原创,并使用权威的抄袭检测系统,让留学生们轻松应对论文写作并创作出专属个人的优秀论文!