Parties cannot rely on the strict terms of a contract to justify dishonest conduct – the duty of honest performance imposes an obligation to act honestly and in good faith when performing contractual obligations, even if the terms of the contract allow for termination or other actions.
Overall, in the context of the case, the duty of good faith clause imposed a core requirement that the parties should act honestly towards each other and the company, and not to act in bad faith towards each other.
Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (often simplified to good faith) is a rule used by most courts in the United States that requires every party in a contract to implement the agreement as intended, not using means to undercut the purpose of the transaction.
Whilst there is no general duty of good faith in English contract law, such an obligation is finding its way into commercial contracts both by its inclusion as an express term but also by implication.
In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.
The duty of good faith recognises that the interests of parties will conflict at times. It holds a lower standard than a fiduciary duty as the parties are not required to put the other side's interests before their own, or minimise their self-interest.
Government Code (GC) section 19257 states that to be valid, a civil service appointment must be made and accepted in “good faith” under the civil service statutes and State Personnel Board (SPB) regulations. “Good faith” is defined as, having honest intentions or in compliance with standards of decency and honesty.
In the UK, a trade mark can be considered to be registered in “bad faith” if an individual or company acts with dishonesty which falls below commercial standards.