Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that continental civil law scholarship applies the concept of good faith in either a subjective (honesty in fact) or objective sense (good faith and fair dealing), the present article focuses on the latter one. The traditional view in England and Wales discards the recognition of a general principle of good faith and fair dealing in English law. English courts have adopted a piecemeal solutions approach (as shown by the judicial decisions issued in Interfoto Picture Library (1987) and Walford v. Miles (1992)). Meanwhile, the principle in question, along with the concept of the freedom of contract, is one of the most important principles of the continental civil law tradition (cf. art. 1104 of the French Civil Code, § 157, § 242 of the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, art. 2 (1) of the Swiss Zivilgesetzbuch, art. 6:2 Burgerlijk Wetboek, art. 5 of the Polish Civil Code, art. 2 (1) Common European Sales Law, art. 1:201 Principles of European Contract Law, art. III1:103 Draft Common Frame of Reference). The current work analyzes recent English case law (in particular Yam Seng (2013)), which seems to acknowledge the principle of good faith and fair dealing while rejecting the traditional view mentioned above. The comparative approach — references to American, and Commonwealth law, as well as to that of particular European states — is taken into account. The author claims that hostility to the concept of good faith in an objective sense in English law is superficial. One may expect that in the near future courts in England and Wales will follow the path taken by courts in the United States (§ 205 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981)), Australia (Renard Constructions (1992)) and Canada (Bhasin v. Hrynew (2014)), and they will finally recognize good faith as an underlying principle.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".