Articulating Contractual Good Faith: The Evolving Civil and Common Law Dimension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the operation of contract law tends to be appreciated through its inherent twofold rationale, informed by autonomy and institutional standards, recurring concerns arise around the ratio of certainty to fairness in contractual transactions. In critically weighing the contract-law commitments to both autonomy- and policy-oriented normative values, a particular regard is given to the recent focus on good faith obligations in common law jurisdictions. Specifically, of notable importance is how considerations of good faith have developed over the last decade in Australia, Canada as well as England and Wales. Yet, the approach to and the degree of acceptance of good faith in commercial contexts in either jurisdiction diverge – ranging from industry-specific statutory regulation articulating good faith and relational contracts, through the recognition of a general organising principle of good faith, to the engagement with implied duties of good faith. In order to capture the potentialities of these developments to influence contract law in terms of enhancing commercial morality, it is necessary to investigate them from a combined civil–common law perspective. On the one hand, the civilian conceptualisations of good faith have arguably impinged upon the way in which the notion evolves in the common law of contract. On the other hand, the departure from the nineteenth-century classical paradigm of the Anglo-American contract law is parallelised with what symptomises the process of decodification in civil law systems. And on this basis, in view of the growing weight of the jurisprudential component of contract law, the common law’s manner of reasoning appears likely to affect continental contract laws under decodification. Within such an intertwined context, critical insights are offered into the role for and the valences of the currently evolving good faith obligations in policing commercial contracts.
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 | 0.038 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.129 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| 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".