Peter and Mary are poorly educated immigrants who speak little English. They have both just retired from full time work and own their own house. Their son, Fred approaches them and asks whether they would be prepared to lend him some money to start a new business. They say that they will not lend Fred the money but would be prepared to help him borrow some money from a bank or other lending institution. Fred then had discussions with the River Bank who offers him a loan of $100,000 on condition that repayment of the loan is guaranteed by Peter and Mary and supported by a mortgage over their house. Fred also arranges for a mobile lender to visit Peter and Mary to discuss the matter with them. At that discussion, where Fred was present neither he, nor the mobile lender fully explained the nature and effect of the documents that the Bank was asking Peter and Mary to sign nor were they given the opportunity to seek legal advice. Both Fred and the mobile lender did however assure Peter and Mary that 'everything would be all right'. After Peter and Mary signed the guarantee and mortgage the Bank lent Fred the $100,000 and Fred then established his new business. Some months later Fred's business failed, and he was unable to make any further payments to the Bank on the loan. The Bank then gave notice to Peter and Mary that it was demanding repayment of Fred's loan and that if they did not comply with the notice the Bank would take action to take possession of their house and sell it at public auction. REQUIRED Advise Peter and Mary as to their legal rights. The response should cover unconscionable conduct in Australian law and be in the PIRAC (Parties, issue, rules, application and conclusion format)