MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312918544 · doi:10.1017/s0008197315000112

GOOD FAITH PERFORMANCE IN CANADIAN CONTRACT LAW

2015· article· en· W2312918544 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cambridge Law Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyLawFaithHonestyGood faithObligationFair dealingBad faithContext (archaeology)NegotiationCommonwealthPolitical scienceCorporationSociologyLaw and economicsPhilosophyTheologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IN Mellish v Motteux (1792) 170 E.R. 113, 157, Lord Kenyon observed that “in contracts of all kinds, it is of the highest importance that courts of law should compel the observance of honesty and good faith”. This passage echoes a similar statement by Lord Mansfield 25 years earlier in Carter v Boehm (1766) 97 E.R. 1162, 1910. Despite these early statements of principle, the modern common law has been notoriously hostile to the notion that contracting parties are under a general duty of good faith in the performance of their obligations (see W.P. Yee, “Protecting Parties' Reasonable Expectations: A General Principle of Good Faith” (2001) 1 Oxford U. Commonwealth L.J. 195), and there is certainly “no firm line of modern cases to support such an obligation” in English law (see L.E. Trakman and K. Sharma, “The Binding Force of Agreements to Negotiate in Good Faith” [2014] C.L.J. 598). Nevertheless, some recent decisions in Australia, Canada, and England have begun to imply obligations to perform certain types of promises, in certain classes of contracts, in an honest manner, crafting, in the words of Lord Bingham, “piecemeal solutions in response to piecemeal problems” (Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd. [1989] 1 QB 433, 439 (CA)). A recent English example is Yam Seng Pte Ltd. v International Trade Corporation Ltd. [2013] EWHC 111 (QB) in which Leggatt J. found there to be an implied duty of “honesty” and “fidelity to the bargain” in the context of a long-term distribution contract. Importantly, His Lordship emphasised that whether such obligations can be implied is a matter of construction, which involves ascertaining the parties' objective intentions through conventional techniques such as the principle of business efficacy. As implying such obligations depends entirely on the context of each contract (at paras [137]–[143]) there is, at present, no general principle of good faith performance in English contract law, despite some case-by-case recognition (see Mid-Essex Hospital Services N.H.S. Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd. [2013] EWCA Civ 200, at [105], [150]).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0300.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cambridge Law JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207