<Li> The bank did not advise the Amadios that there was no limit on their liability under the guarantee - the Amadios believed the liability was limited to $50,000 . </Li> <P> Justice Mason noted: "Relief on the ground of unconscionable conduct will be granted when unconscientious advantage is taken of an innocent party whose will is overborne so that it is not independent and voluntary, just as it will also be granted when such advantage is taken of an innocent party who though not deprived of an independent and voluntary will, is unable to make a worthwhile judgment as to what is in his best interests (at 462)." </P> <P> In cases of proven unconscionability, the courts will set aside the contract or refuse to make an order for specific performance of it . As will be seen, if the unconscionable conduct constitutes a breach of statutory law, broader remedies (including damages) may be available . </P> <P> Chief Justice Gibbs stated that "The appellant should in my opinion fail only because of its failure to disclose to the respondents matters which it ought to have disclosed" which is that the guarantee was precarious with the state of the bank account of the son at the time he arranged for his parents to place their property in guarantee, and the very close working relationship between the bank and the son, and that the parents thought that the limit of their liability was only $50,000, not the full value of their investment property (being of the order of $200,000). </P>

Amadio v commercial bank of australia ltd (1981) 95 lsjs 419 supreme court (full court) (sa)