Good faith as a ‘general organising principle’ of the common law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Note examines two recent landmark decisions of common law courts which qualify good faith as a ‘general organising principle’ of common law. In a judgment of 2015, MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co v Cottonex Anstalt , the English High Court took the age-old discussion as to whether good faith is a general principle of common law to a new level and acknowledged, for the very first time, the existence of an organizing principle of good faith. In that judgment, the High Court referred to a 2014 decision of the Canadian Supreme Court, Bhasin v Hrynew , in which the Court held that good faith contractual performance is a general organizing principle of the common law of contract which underpins and informs more specific rules and doctrines of common law contract law. Both decisions are highly relevant for arbitrators and counsel in international arbitration, given that the general principle of good faith is not only a rule of substantive law, but is also regarded today as a standard for the time- and cost-efficient conduct of the arbitration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".