Repayment provisions that impose conditions unreasonably difficult to comply with if reasonably foreseeable events come to pass may satisfy s 9(2)(d) of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), but this does not necessarily render the contract 'unjust' within the meaning of the Act — the provisions must also be unconscionable, harsh or oppressive, which requires the catastrophic consequences to be sufficiently likely, not merely reasonably foreseeable. The assessment of whether conditions are unreasonably difficult to comply with must take into account the borrower's total debt obligations across all lending arrangements, not merely the debt being sued upon. A court's failure to give reasons for its conclusions on central factual issues under s 9(2) is an appellable error.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.