Good Faith In Contract Law: Understanding The Basics

Good faith is a crucial concept in contract law, implying that parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith. This presumption aims to protect the rights of all parties involved and ensure they receive the benefits outlined in the contract. While the interpretation of good faith varies across jurisdictions, it generally serves as a foundation for fair and ethical dealings in commercial and legal contexts. In the context of contract law, good faith often relates to the performance of contractual obligations and the negotiation process, with the specific implications depending on the legal system in question.

Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing assumes that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith. This presumption is in place to ensure that the right of either party to receive the benefits of the contract is not destroyed. It is implied in a number of contract types to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract.

A lawsuit based on the breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when they use specific contractual terms in isolation to refuse to perform their contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances and understandings between the parties. When a court or trier of fact interprets a contract, there is always an "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" in every written agreement.

In U.S. law, the legal concept of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arose in the mid-19th century because contemporary legal interpretations of "the express contract language, interpreted strictly, appeared to grant unbridled discretion to one of the parties". This covenant was discussed in the First Restatement of Contracts by the American Law Institute, and was later incorporated into the Uniform Commercial Code (as part of Section 1-304) and codified as Section 205 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.

Most U.S. jurisdictions view the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing solely as a variant of breach of contract, with the implied covenant merely filling in an unwritten contractual term that the parties would have included had they thought of it. As a result, a breach of the implied covenant generally results in ordinary contractual damages. However, in certain jurisdictions, such as in the case of A.C. Shaw Construction v. Washoe County, a breach of the implied covenant can also give rise to a tort action.

In Canadian contract law, there are two distinct duties requiring parties to act in good faith: the duty to negotiate in good faith and the duty to act honestly in the performance of contractual obligations. These duties are equally relevant to both Québec's civil law and the other provinces' and territories' common law approaches to contract law, representing an attempt by the Supreme Court of Canada to extend the duties of good faith embedded in Québecois law to the jurisprudence of the country's common law jurisdictions.

Duty to negotiate in good faith

The duty to negotiate in good faith is a concept in contract law that requires parties to a contract to deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith. This means that neither party should do anything that would destroy or injure the other party's right to receive the benefits of the contract. The duty to negotiate in good faith is particularly relevant when there is an imbalance in bargaining power between the parties, such as in negotiations between franchisors and franchisees, insurers and insured parties, or in contracts pertaining to marriages and separation agreements.

In the United States, the legal concept of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arose in the mid-19th century to protect parties from taking advantage of each other in contract negotiations. In 1933, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that every legal contract contains an "implied covenant that neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party, to receive the fruits of the contract." This implied covenant was eventually incorporated into the Uniform Commercial Code and recognised by the American Law Institute.

The duty to negotiate in good faith is also recognised in Canadian contract law, where it is grounded in the broader obligation on individuals to exercise their civil rights in good faith. This duty is enshrined in Québecois contract law and has been recognised in certain circumstances in the common law jurisdictions of Canada. In Québec, this right is based on section 1375 of the civil code, which states that parties to a contract must act in good faith at the time an obligation arises and when it is performed. While English common law traditionally did not recognise a duty to negotiate in good faith, Canadian contract law does so when there is an imbalance in bargaining power between the parties.

The duty to negotiate in good faith has been the subject of several court cases in both the United States and Canada, with courts interpreting the concept differently depending on the specific circumstances of each case. For example, in the case of RREF BB Acquisitions, LLC v. MAS Properties, LLC, the North Carolina Business Court recognised a cause of action for the duty to negotiate in good faith, which was considered a noteworthy development in contract law. However, it is important to note that the claim is based on a breach of a preliminary agreement to negotiate rather than an independent legal duty.

In summary, the duty to negotiate in good faith is a crucial concept in contract law that aims to protect the interests of all parties involved and ensure fair and honest dealings. While the specific interpretation and enforcement of this duty may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances of each case, the underlying principle of acting in good faith remains consistent.

Duty of honest contractual performance

The duty of honest contractual performance is a contractual obligation and an implied term of a contract. It was introduced into Canadian law in 2014 following the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Bhasin v. Hrynew. The Court recognised that a new common law duty was being created, stating:

> "It is appropriate to recognize a new common law duty that applies to all contracts as a manifestation of the general organising principle of good faith: a duty of honest performance, which requires the parties to be honest with each other in relation to the performance of their contractual obligations."

The duty of honest contractual performance requires parties to a contract to act in good faith and with honesty when exercising their rights and delivering their obligations under a contract. This duty prohibits parties from lying or knowingly misleading each other about matters directly linked to the performance of the contract. It does not, however, impose a duty of loyalty or disclosure, nor does it require a party to forego advantages flowing from the contract.

The scope of this duty may be relaxed in certain contexts and can be limited by express contractual terms, provided that those terms respect minimum core requirements. The precise content of honest performance will vary depending on the context.

In the case of C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, the Supreme Court of Canada provided important guidance on how parties to contracts must conduct themselves in good faith when carrying out or terminating a contract. The Court held that parties must not lie or knowingly mislead each other about matters directly linked to the performance of the contract, including overt lies, half-truths, omissions, and even silence, depending on the circumstances.

Good faith in English contract law

Good faith is an important concept in contract law, implying that all parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith. This presumption is essential to ensure that all parties can receive the benefits of the contract. While the concept of good faith is well-established in some jurisdictions, its recognition varies across legal systems.

English contract law has traditionally been reluctant to recognise a general duty of good faith, instead focusing on "piecemeal solutions" to address specific problems of unfairness. This reluctance stems partly from concerns about undermining contractual certainty. However, the concept of good faith has gained some traction in specific contexts, such as construction and commercial contracts.

In the construction industry, standard forms of contracts often include obligations that resemble good faith requirements. For example, clause 10.1 of the NEC3 states that parties should act in accordance with the contract and in a spirit of "mutual trust and cooperation". While broad concepts of fair dealing are reflected in English court responses to construction and term implications, the courts generally favour a narrow interpretation of express contractual obligations of good faith.

The 2013 case of Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd briefly raised expectations of a pervasive duty of good faith in commercial contracts. Mr Justice Leggatt challenged the traditional hostility towards good faith, arguing that an obligation of good faith could be implied by reference to established approaches for implying terms into a contract. However, subsequent cases, including the Court of Appeal's decision in MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v Cottonex Anstalt, have reverted to the traditional position of not recognising a general duty of good faith.

To summarise, while good faith obligations are not expressly recognised in English contract law, they may be implied in specific contexts, such as relational contracts like joint ventures, franchise agreements, and long-term distributorships. These obligations are interpreted narrowly by the courts, and parties seeking to rely on good faith provisions must ensure they are clearly defined in their contracts to avoid ambiguity.

Good faith in US law

In the US, the concept of the 'implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing' in contract law arose in the mid-19th century. This was due to the fact that contemporary legal interpretations of express contract language granted one party unbridled discretion. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing reinforces express covenants or promises in the contract and is incorporated into the Uniform Commercial Code.

The implied covenant assumes that all parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith. This means that parties to a contract cannot destroy or injure the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits outlined in the contract. A breach of the implied covenant generally gives rise to ordinary contractual damages. However, in certain jurisdictions, such as in insurance law, a breach of the implied covenant can also give rise to a tort action.

In the case of Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company et al. in 1933, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, stating that:

> "In every contract there is an implied covenant that neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party, to receive the fruits of the contract. In other words, every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing."

While the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is an important aspect of US contract law, it is not recognised in all states. For example, before the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code in the 1950s, the common law of most states did not recognise the implied covenant. Additionally, certain states, such as Massachusetts, have stricter enforcement of the implied covenant than others.

Frequently asked questions