of the parties... have to suffer severe loss in the judgment,... it always makes me a little sad that some sort of arrangement could not have been come to, to soften the effects of such a judgment." Full Court of the Supreme Court The Amadios appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court. The Full Court, King CJ, Zelling and Jacobs JJ, held that the bank knew that the son's financial position was desperate, the bank had collaborated with the son to conceal his true position from his creditors and the bank had an obvious pecuniary interest to obtain better security for the repayment of the money it had already lent. The Full Court held that the silence from the bank in these circumstances meant the transaction was unconscionable and it was set aside. Judgment It was held by the High Court of Australia in 4-1 majority that, in all the circumstances, it was unconscionable for the bank to rely on the guarantee. Notable circumstances taken into the account by the court include: The Amadios had a limited understanding of English. The Amadios did not have the benefit of independent advice, and such advice was not provided or suggested by the bank. When the mortgage was executed the bank was aware of the Amadios' son's financial situation and knew the Amadios were not so appraised. 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. Majority opinion 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)." 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. Chief Justice Gibbs stated that "The appellant should in my opinion fail only because of its failure to disclose to the respondents matters