*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 96 Part 9) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n FAMILY LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Richard Ingleby<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Emily Vale<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ruth CA Higgins SC<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Injuncting Unconscionable Calls of Demand Guarantees in Construction Industry: Comparative and Empirical Analyses of Australian Practice<\/strong><\/em>s<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Didi Hu<\/p>\n Unconscionability is one of the three exceptions injuncting calls upon unconditional undertakings to pay on demand given under construction contracts. This article examines the Australian approach to the unconscionability exception, empirically by extracting four indicia from decisions granting or rejecting injunction applications, and comparatively by juxtaposing Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s eclectic position with Singapore courts\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 vigorous use of the exception and English market\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s reservation about the instrument itself. In doing so, this article proposes to demonstrate that Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s self-restrained approach to the unconscionability exception prescribes a normative standard of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153conduct\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, not merely proscribing a matrix of unfair, unreasonable or unjust \u00e2\u20ac\u0153result\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Taking the King\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Hard Bargain<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Samuel White<\/p>\n Historically, personnel who join the armed forces agree to take what has been known as the King\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Hard Bargain \u00e2\u20ac\u201c a unilateral contract to give all, and expect nothing. Little has been written however on the nature of this power, an arguably outdated concept inconsistent with modern concepts of employment law. This article looks to explore the notion of accepting the King\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Hard Bargain, and whether or not the Governor-General has, and retains in the face of Regulations, the power to dismiss members of the Australian Defence Force. In doing so, it challenges the notion that the Commander-in-Chief is merely titular, a line of thinking that has been twisted from its original meaning to a near-rule of constitutional interpretation, and concludes with questioning whether or not the King\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Hard Bargain should remain so, or whether or not the legislation should be amended to reflect the Public Service\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s conditions.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU \u00e2\u20ac\u201c ALJ Vol 96 No 9 Contents<\/a> or here: New Westlaw Australia \u00e2\u20ac\u201c ALJ Vol 96 No 9 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n