Abstract
Abstract This article argues that unconscionability provides no good basis for arguments in favour of lumping equitable doctrines in English law. It explores three areas of equity where unconscionability has most strongly divided lumpers and splitters: undue influence and unconscionable bargains; proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts; and the ‘rule in Re Rose’ and the decision in Pennington v Waine. In relation to each discussion, the paper explains how lumpers rely on the idea of unconscionability to argue in favour of merging or expanding those established doctrines, and argues against lumping, by explaining how this distorts a proper understanding of the law.
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.
