An Old Bottle for the New Wine: Understanding the Duty of Honest Performance under the Objective Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bhasin v Hrynew has many dimensions and potentially affects almost every aspect of Anglo-Canadian contract law. This article is limited to one aspect only: the duty of honest performance (“DHP”). My article attempts to show that the objective theory can provide a solid foundation and a different thinking framework for understanding and developing the DHP. If I am right, the DHP may be placed on a sound footing, independently of the organizing principle of good faith. Section I of this article traces the duty’s development from Bhasin to Callow. Section II argues that under the objective theory, reasonable expectations of the parties are symmetrical, because reasonableness, as a transactional term, merely represents the world shared between the parties. Section III discusses the DHP under the framework of symmetry. Specifically, I discuss the possible developments of the knowledge requirement, the inclusive and exclusive bases under the DHP, the interpretations of equivocation and silence, why the DHP necessarily exists, and why breach of the DHP should be reliance-based.\nL’affaire Bhasin c. Hrynew comporte de nombreuses dimensions et a de potentielles répercussions sur presque tous les aspects du droit des contrats anglo-canadien. Le présent article se limite à un seul aspect : le devoir d’exécution honnête (« DEH »). Mon article tente de montrer que la théorie objective peut fournir une base solide et un cadre de pensée différent pour comprendre et développer le DEH. Si j’ai raison, le DEH peut être placé sur une base solide, indépendamment du principe organisateur de la bonne foi. La section I du présent article retrace l’évolution de l’obligation énoncée dans l’arrêt Bhasin à l’arrêt Callow. La section II soutient qu’en vertu de la théorie objective, les attentes raisonnables des parties sont symétriques, parce que le caractère raisonnable, en tant que terme transactionnel, représente simplement le monde partagé entre les parties. La section III examine le DEH dans le cadre de la symétrie. Plus précisément, je discute des développements possibles de l’exigence de connaissance, des bases inclusives et exclusives du DEH, des interprétations de l’équivoque et du silence, des raisons pour lesquelles le DEH existe nécessairement, et des raisons pour lesquelles la violation du DEH devrait être fondée sur la confiance.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".