Abstract
The doctrine of unconscionable bargains doctrine continues to be a viable source of relief for those who have entered into inequitable agreements as a result of an opposing party’s impropriety. When compared to other jurisdictions, however, it is shown that the conditions placed by the English courts on the third Lobb requirement, that is, the claimant needing to prove “oppressive and overreaching” contractual terms, which also “shock the conscience of the court,” have constituted a shield against this form of relief, deeming the doctrine’s use ineffective within English law.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
