Talk:Good faith (law)

Under the section Contemporary Usage, why is Hadley v Baxendale, a UK contract law case, discussed in a paragraph which brings up solely American judicial treatment of the subject?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.128.149 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Hadley is followed by all U.S. jurisdictions, and therefore necessarily controls strategy from a plaintiff's point of view. That is, a plaintiff's attorney looking for maximum recovery will have to think about how to get around Hadley, and one way to do that is to try to turn a contract claim into a tort.--Coolcaesar (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Good faith (law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess[edit]

The main problem is that User:Wikidea moved Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to Good faith (law) on 31 December 2011.

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not the same thing as the much broader legal term of art, "good faith." Trying to discuss them in the same article is like trying to write about apples and oranges in an article about apples or an article about oranges. It doesn't really work. For starters, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicates a fairly specific set of public policies, which is why violations of that covenant are sometimes actionable as torts. Good faith in and of itself isn't a cause of action but is merely a general legal principle applied in enforcing recognized causes of action, like breach of contract. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcaesar (talk · contribs), do you have sources which discuss this nuance? One of the legal reviews, Dubroff (2006), basically focuses entirely on the implied covenant of good faith. If the implied covenant of good faith is the apple, it doesn't seem like this article really discusses the orange at all, except to put the similar concept into context in other nations. I'm fine with renaming it back; Wikidea (talk · contribs) focuses on British law and perhaps just wanted to use a more general title to accommodate an international discussion. Most of the work on the implied covenant arose in the United States according to reviews such as Dubroff.II | (t - c) 03:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. I will have to look up some sources sometime. Unfortunately, I'm really busy right now both personally and professionally and my main Wikipedia priority at the moment is cleaning up the situation in Discovery (law). I finally figured out the rest of the history a couple of weeks ago and I've been looking for the time to revise that article and put it all together. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]