MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591166856 · doi:10.54648/bula2017023

Good Faith: English Hostility, Unworkable Obligations for Commerce, or a Healthy Development? What to Expect in Canada?

2017· article· en· W2591166856 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alex Fomcenco

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Law Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionInternational tradeGoods and servicesSingle marketInvestment (military)BusinessCustoms unionInternational free trade agreementDutyOpposition (politics)Free tradeEconomicsLawPolitical scienceEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 30 October 2016, a significant new landmark in international trade was reached by the signing of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the CETA, between the European Union, the EU, and Canada. In an over 1,000 pages long document, the parties outline details on how to ‘strengthen their close economic relationship, … create an expanded and secure market for their goods and services through the reduction or elimination of barriers to trade and investment, [and] establish clear, transparent, predictable and mutually advantageous rules to govern their trade and investment’. In accordance to the Joint Interpretative Instrument on the CETA the agreement ‘embodies the shared commitment of Canada and the European Union and its Member States to free and fair trade’ and ‘creates new opportunities for trade and investment for Europeans and Canadians’. In respect to small- and medium-size enterprises, ‘for whom trying to meet the cost requirements of customers is a constant challenge’ the document specifically states that the CETA will allow ‘virtually all manufactured goods to be exported duty-free’. Notwithstanding the severe opposition that signing of this agreement has met on both sides of the Atlantic, the initiative is also met with positive tones. Although it is too early to say, as to what extend the CETA will contribute to the expansion of trade between the signing parties, it is expected that far more contracts will be signed and agreements entered into between businesses incorporated in Canada and the EU, respectively. Businesses in the civil law continental Europe are used to the concept of good faith in negotiations and subsequent performance of their contractual obligations. Businesses in the common law jurisdictions, however, have a quite different view to that regard. Canada has inherited its contract law principles from the United Kingdom. On the question of good faith, however, it seems like the jurisdiction is departing – albeit cautiously – and moving away from the traditional English hostility towards good faith in contractual obligations, thus, creating its path and a unique conception of it. This article will attempt to elucidate some important aspects of the current developments in connection to good faith in Canada. Hopefully, the article will provide some guidance in how to understand good faith and what to expect in a Canadian business and legal environment to avoid misunderstandings and unpleasant consequences that potentially could arise from that.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness Law ReviewSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207