考虑到澳大利亚竞争和消费者委员会对Coles的案例，法院能够宣布Coles确实在ARC项目中进行了不合理的行为，而这正是导致问题的原因(ACCC, 2015)。ARC项目被认为是供应商受到不公平威胁的项目之一。如果供应商没有按照ARC回扣付款，那么供应商在与Cole的业务交互中将受到商业后果的威胁。科尔可能不会将对供应商有利的支持信息扩展到那些没有支付ARC回扣的供应商。在推广供应商时会有风险，因为只有支付了ARC回扣的供应商才会被授予交易供应商的地位。此外，科尔斯甚至会停止从该供应商购买，直到他们支付回扣。此外，Coles将停止向他们提供任何更新的购买报价和更多(ACCC, 2014a)。
In a test for unconscionable contract, the court would assess the allegation of unconscionable contract made in a few ways. The court would check that there is undue influence in any way. Undue influence is how one party might duress another party by exercising pressure on them to sign a contract. In such a situation, the party exercising the pressure would have something to gain in the situation. The pressure can take the form of a threat made to the party so that they will not have any option but to sign it. The threat need not be physical, it could be some form of a financial threat or more.
Considering the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Vs Coles, the court was able to declare that Coles had indeed engaged in unconscionable conduct in the ARC Program that was the one causing issues (ACCC, 2015). This ARC program was seen to be one that suppliers were unfairly threatened. Where the suppliers did not pay according to the ARC rebate, then the suppliers would be threatened with commercial consequences in their business interactions with Cole. Support information that was beneficial to the suppliers might not be extended by Cole to those suppliers who did not pay the ARC rebate. There will be risks in promotion of the supplier, as only suppliers who had paid the ARC rebate will be given the transactional supplier status. Coles furthermore would even stop buying from that supplier until they paid the rebates. In addition, Coles would stop giving them any newer purchase offers and more (ACCC, 2014a).
Some of the other tests that are used are in the form of understanding if one of the parties had imposed unequal bargaining power on the other party, where one party might have advantage over the other party, because they did not fully comprehend the power terms in the contract. Unfair surprises might exist in a contract, when some terms of contract are used in ways that the other contracted party cannot anticipate. Now in the case of ACCC vs. Cole it can be seen that the test for unfair bargaining indeed shows that Coles has a better bargaining position compared to that of its suppliers in the ARC contract. Hence, based on its bargaining position it is able to threaten the suppliers. Secondly, suppliers were not provided these adequate information, such as if they do not pay the rebate money for the ARC they would not be supported, or would not be given transactional status etc (ACCC, 2014b). This form of information restriction furthermore was an unfair surprise to the suppliers. Within a short period of time, all suppliers are asked to understand the benefits of ARC and sign it. And this once again shows unfair negotiation or bargaining tactics of Coles.