Good faith: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Actually, an American concept, articulated by the New York Court of Appeals as long ago as 1933<ref>''Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company'' [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) wikipedia]</ref> as follows:
{{a|glossary|}}Actually, an American concept, articulated by the New York Court of Appeals as long ago as 1933<ref>''Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company'' [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) wikipedia]</ref> as follows:
:In every {{tag|contract}} there is an [[Implied term|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]].
:In every {{tag|contract}} there is an [[Implied term|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]].



Revision as of 15:52, 13 June 2019

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™
Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Actually, an American concept, articulated by the New York Court of Appeals as long ago as 1933[1] as follows:

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.

There is a similar provision in English law - utmost good faith or uberrima fides but it is not a general presumption of contract law, but only arises in certain special categories of contract (specifically insurance contracts and employment contracts).

So: in the US it comes with the set; in English law (outside Insurance and Employment) you need to negotiate it in.

What is it?

Is it different to reasonable?

See also

  1. Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company wikipedia