GOOD LUCK!
I can't believe his legal advice isn't telling him that courts are VERY reluctant to imply terms into contract and will only do so where the following criteria is satisfied:
The term to be implied must be:
- reasonable and equitable (and that's for banks as well, not just borrowers)
- necessary to give business efficacy to the contract (this is where they'll really struggle....)
- So obvious it goes without saying (as will they here....)
- Capable of clear expression
- Must not contradict any express term of the contract (and here)
The law on the implication of terms in contracts is very established and, if you're thinking about chucking $100 bucks this guy's way as he asks, you can read all about it in the case of
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
I personally, wouldn't bother (giving him money, not reading the case). Banks are in it to make money and are entitled to too. If you sign up at a given rate and on given terms you (generally) can't refer to extraneous factors as to why your bargain should be alterered. This is fundamental to contract law...short of fraud, unconscionability or some other particular exigency, courts won't go rushing around to make things more 'fair'.
