Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s common law of contract has seen years of theory, advocacy, and vaguer musings concretized in the form of a new organizing principle of good faith.This is established in the case of Bhasin v. Hrynew. The meaning of this organizing principle is now up for grabs. If good faith aims to regulate the content of contractual duties while at the same time being immanent in parties’ expectations, what could it possibly mean? How could good faith spring from the parties’ agreement and yet control it? In this article, I draw out the implications of this question by testing existing work on good faith in contract against the doctrinal data in Bhasin. It will turn out that previous understandings of good faith tend to take one of two forms, public and private, and neither quite works as an organizing principle that can help us understand relevant doctrine. But I suggest that a new understanding, a relational good faith, does. That is, relational in the sense of relational autonomy, not Macneil et al's relational theory of contract. Good faith is just this: in contracting, parties must respect their counterparties as relational subjects, as simultaneously possessed of abstract personhood while being constituted by their position in structures of relations. It means recognizing the incompleteness of attempts to understand law through overly public or private lenses. Reasons for legal decisions must be reasons that party and court, businessperson and citizen, can hold as their own. Good faith is the recognition that there is something more than the private ordering paradigm going on in contracts, and that recognizing this can yet manifest a fuller respect for the private parties. It is the studious rejection of any stopping point in our collective search for the proper relationship between a person and their context.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".