A Reformulated Test for Unconscionability

5 Pages Posted: 21 Aug 2019 Last revised: 4 Oct 2019

See all articles by Vincent Ooi

Vincent Ooi

Singapore Management University - School of Law; Singapore Management University - Centre for AI & Data Governance

Walter Yong

Singapore Management University

Date Written: July 1, 2019

Abstract

It is perhaps not every day that a court makes a finding that nearly all of the vitiating factors apply in a single case. Yet, in the unusual case of BOM v BOK [2018] SGCA 83, the Singapore Court of Appeal found that the respondent’s declaration of trust (DOT) for his infant son could be set aside on the bases of misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence and unconscionability. It is to be noted that duress was not pleaded by the respondent. With the court finding for the respondent on so many grounds, it is perhaps surprising that this case reached the apex court of Singapore. What may be even more unusual about this case, is that the first appellant was in fact legally-trained and had practised as an advocate and solicitor some years before the events of this case.

Keywords: Contract Law, Unconscionability, Equity

Suggested Citation

Ooi, Vincent and Yong, Walter, A Reformulated Test for Unconscionability (July 1, 2019). (2019) 135(3) Law Quarterly Review 400-405; Singapore Management University School of Law Research Paper No. 35. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3436552

Vincent Ooi (Contact Author)

Singapore Management University - School of Law ( email )

55 Armenian Street
Singapore, 179943
Singapore

HOME PAGE: http://law.smu.edu.sg/faculty/profile/156436/Vincent-OOI

Singapore Management University - Centre for AI & Data Governance ( email )

55 Armenian Street
Singapore
Singapore

Walter Yong

Singapore Management University ( email )

Li Ka Shing Library
70 Stamford Road
Singapore 178901, 178899
Singapore

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
24
Abstract Views
73
PlumX Metrics