University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2011 Mar-Apr;34(2):79-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.02.001. Epub 2011 Mar 26.
Seniors in Australia are being called upon to mortgage their most precious economic asset, the family home. They may be asked to guarantee the liabilities of other family members by providing a mortgage-based guarantee or they may decide to enter into a reverse mortgage to supplement financially their savings and pensions. As the family home is the single most valuable asset for most older Australians, the creation of any obligations in regard to it ought to be undertaken with care and vigilance. While seniors are free to create mortgage, they may lack the capacity to understand the legal ramifications of these complex transactions or be unable to protect their interests when entering into them. It is not suggested that older Australians necessarily suffer a lack of contractual capacity. Many seniors are more than able to take care of their interests and assets. However, some seniors do suffer cognitive impairment which adversely affects their capacity to act in their best interests and to navigate the complexities of contractual relations. In contract and mortgage law, this raises the issue of mental incapacity. For centuries, the common law has recognized not only that mentally incapacitated people exist, but that they may enter into contracts such as mortgage and may later wish to have the mortgage set aside. The present formulation of the contractual doctrine of mental incapacity is the product of 19th century jurisprudence in which the courts framed the doctrine to accommodate commercial dealing rather than the interests of persons who lacked the necessary mental capacity. Accordingly, the doctrine has been very difficult to rely on successfully when challenging mortgages made by persons lacking capacity. Therefore, Australian litigators and courts alike have sought to deal with mental incapacity issues in the contractual context by using and modifying other doctrines (such as non est factum, undue influence and unconscionable dealing) in which the issue of capacity may be incorporated, but where mental incapacity need not be the sole or primary focus. While this had led to greater success for mortgagors, this has been at the expense of the common law doctrine. The article concludes by offering some suggestions as to how the doctrine may be modernized and mental capacity dealt with in a way both to empower competent seniors and protect those vulnerable seniors suffering cognitive impairment.
澳大利亚的老年人被呼吁抵押他们最宝贵的经济资产，也就是家庭住宅。他们可能会被要求通过提供抵押贷款担保来为其他家庭成员的债务提供担保，或者他们可能会决定进行反向抵押贷款，以补充他们的储蓄和养老金。由于家庭住宅是大多数澳大利亚老年人最重要的资产，因此在处理与之相关的任何义务时，应该谨慎和警惕。虽然老年人可以自由地设立抵押贷款，但他们可能缺乏理解这些复杂交易的法律后果的能力，或者在签订这些交易时无法保护自己的利益。这并不是说老年澳大利亚人必然缺乏合同能力。许多老年人完全有能力照顾自己的利益和资产。然而，一些老年人确实存在认知障碍，这会影响他们为自己的最佳利益行事的能力，并使他们难以应对复杂的合同关系。在合同法和抵押法中，这就引出了精神能力不足的问题。几个世纪以来，普通法不仅承认精神能力不足的人存在，而且还承认他们可以签订抵押贷款等合同，并且可能以后希望撤销这些合同。精神能力不足的合同学说的现行表述是 19 世纪法学的产物，当时法院为了适应商业交易的需要而不是为了缺乏必要精神能力的人的利益而制定了这一学说。因此，在质疑缺乏能力的人所签订的抵押贷款时，这一学说很难成功地被依赖。因此，澳大利亚诉讼律师和法院都试图通过使用和修改其他学说（如非本人所为、不当影响和显失公平的交易）来处理合同背景下的精神能力不足问题，在这些学说中可以纳入能力问题，但不必将精神能力不足作为唯一或主要重点。虽然这使得抵押人获得了更大的成功，但这是以牺牲普通法学说为代价的。本文最后提出了一些建议，即如何使该学说现代化，并以既能赋予有能力的老年人权力，又能保护那些认知障碍的脆弱老年人的方式来处理精神能力问题。
