Equity and Trusts Law

Question: In Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) the High Court appears to have restricted the application of the equitable principles relating

to unconscionable/unconscientious conduct to circumstances where:
? The victim is impecunious;
? The disability affects his or her ability to look after his or her own best interests in his or her everyday life and not just in regard to the transaction with the

wrongdoer; and
? The perpetrator is aware of the disability, but IS NOT ACTING in the normal course of their business.
Is this an arguable summary of the High Court?s decision in this case? Support your arguments with reference to precedent and scholarly publications and articles.

referencing:
You must always use the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, 3rd ed. for your referencing. (free via google search). Link.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.unimelb.edu.au

%2F469B9330-4CA2-11E2-95000050568D0140&ei=I3YMU6KpMcqgkQW1_4GgDQ&usg=AFQjCNH2RUglM3gdG8MJytV1E_mm30K8qw&bvm=bv.61725948,d.dGI
Do not provide a bibliography or reference list.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂