Sentences with phrase «unconscionable conduct by»

In legal terms, a signature can be challenged for a number of reasons, including that the signature is a forgery, or that, although not a forgery, the signature was obtained as a result of unconscionable conduct by a party to a transaction, fraud instigated by a third party, or undue influence exerted by a third party.

Mr Morrice said the code was put together because the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was investigating allegations of unconscionable conduct by the chains.

A finding of misleading or unconscionable conduct by the ACCC could expose Fonterra and Murray Goulburn to fines of up to $ 1.1 million.

It was alleged that Murray Goulburn Cooperative Co. Limited (Murray Goulburn), along with former managing director Gary Helou and former chief financial officer Bradley Hingle are engaged in unconscionable conduct by...

Not exact matches

The Court declared that Coles engaged in unconscionable conduct in the implementation of its Active Retail Collaboration (ARC) program by making threats of the following consequences if suppliers declined to pay the ARC rebate:

The Court also declared that Coles engaged in unconscionable conduct in circumstances in which it had greater bargaining power than certain suppliers, including by:

In December 2014, the Federal Court declared, by consent, that Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles) engaged in unconscionable conduct in its dealings with certain suppliers.

Against this backdrop, the company faces a class action, is being investigated by ASIC and the competition regulator ACCC has taken legal action in the Federal Court, alleging unconscionable conduct and misleading farmers in relation to forecasting a milk price of $ 6.05 when it allegedly knew dairy commodity prices were falling globally.

The case, brought by law form Levitt Robinson, accuses Aveo of unconscionable conduct and engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct.

In relation to the second proceedings, the Court made declarations that Coles engaged in unconscionable conduct in circumstances where it had greater bargaining power in relation to certain suppliers, including, by:

«Much more important is the magnitude of the penalties imposed and the recognition by the Court that Coles» conduct in its dealings with suppliers was unconscionable and in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.

By framing Coles» conduct as unconscionable, the ACCC will lose out a little in relation to possible penalties.

Unconscionable conduct is assessed by reference to the particular circumstances in which the conduct occurs and often (but not always) includes a pattern of behaviour which taken together constitutes unconscionability.

Unconscionable conduct (agrees with NFF that they have not provided protection and support reforms «to provide transparency in the supply chain» and recognise that «certain classes of suppliers... are predisposed to suffering from a special disadvantage...»; misuse of market power (legal framework must «level the balance of market power in negotiations...», «ensure transparency in the transmission of market prices» and «not allow for final market risks to be borne by the primary producer» and provide «transparency of contract processes» - specifically, Canegrowers supports effects test and a process giving ACCC greater power to «regulate anti-competitive behaviour and impose penalties», shifting «the decisions framework from the judicial system to a regulatory system» which would make it more accessible to small producers); collective bargaining (notes limits of Sugar Industry Act (Qld); authorisation and notification approval costly and limited and not a viable alternative - peak bodies should be able to «commence and progress collective bargaining with mills on behalf of their members» and current threshold too restrictive)» competitive neutrality (mixed outcomes - perverse outcomes in the case of natural monopolies - suggest remove «application of competitive neutrality provisions to natural monopoly essential services»)

Changes to competition laws (milk wars discussion and recommendations relating to MMP (introduce effects test), predatory pricing (recommend Minister direct ACCC to investigate Coles for breach of s 46 relating to predatory pricing), unconscionable conduct (suggest it be defined), statutory duty of good faith, unfair contract terms (seeks «recognition of the competitive disadvantage faced by farmers» and extension of unfair contract terms protection to small business), collective bargaining (seeks relaxation of public interest test for boycott approvals in agriculture markets, increase «ability for peak bodies to commence and progress collective bargaining and boycott applications» on behalf of members - and further dairy specific recommendations, ACCC divestiture power (wants ACCC to have similar divestiture powers to Comp Commission in UK - «simpler process of divestiture», ACCC monitoring powers (wants Minister to direct ACCC to use price monitoring powers to «monitor prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of drinking milk») and mandatory code of conduct (wants mandatory code and «Ombudsman with teeth to ensure compliance»)-RRB-.

The ACCC alleges that Coles has engaged in unconscionable conduct towards 200 of its smaller suppliers, in breach of the ACL by, among other things:

The ongoing attempts to undo the will of the Liberian people by denigrating the conduct of the vote constitute an unconscionable attack on the democratic institutions of Africa's oldest republic.

The plaintiffs seek declarations that the defendants have violated RICO by committing mail and wire fraud and that their conduct constitutes unfair, deceptive or unconscionable sales practices; damages including treble damages, costs of litigation and attorneys» fees.

The claim by the defendants to Adams» own claim in a separate action for the consent order to be set aside on duty, estoppel, mistake and unconscionable conduct was dismissed.

Estoppel by conduct can only arise where it would be unconscionable to allow a defendant to benefit from his or her conduct.

there could only be a conclusion of lack of good faith within the meaning of [s 31]... where the fact that the negotiations had not passed an «embryonic» stage was, in turn, caused by some breach of or absence of good faith such as deliberate delay, sharp practice, misleading negotiating or other unsatisfactory or unconscionable conduct.

(3AA) However, if such proceedings are instituted with the consent of both of the parties to the marriage, the court may dismiss the proceedings if it is satisfied that, because the consent was obtained by fraud, duress or unconscionable conduct, allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to a miscarriage of justice.