The Doctrine of Good Faith in English Law Acceptation or Rejection
دراسة في ضوء احدث القرارات القضائية الانكليزية
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35246/jols.v34is.260Keywords:
Good Faith, English LawAbstract
This article considers the doctrine of good faith in English law of contract. It analyses the different decisions of courts and the opinions of scholars and assesses whether good faith is general doctrine in English law of contract or not? It has been found that there is traditional English hostility towards a doctrine of good faith. However, in the last six years, a judicial trend, supported by some English scholars, has begun to argue that the principle of good faith should be adopted in the law of contract. This trend tries to implication contracts the duty of good faith as a implied term.
The recent attempts of the Judge Leggatt and subsequent judicial decisions that have adopted his approach, although not yet reached its goal in the adoption of English law good faith as a general doctrine in contracts, but it can be said that it is likely that English law (now or later) would accept the existence of good faith in contracts, at least as an implied term in contracts.
Downloads
References
I. Andrews N, Contract Law (Second edition, Cambridge 2015).
II. Arvind T, Contract Law (First edn, Oxford 2017)
III. Beale HG (ed) Chitty on Contracts; volume 1 General Principle (Thirty-First edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012)
IV. Beatson J , Burrows A and Cartwright J, Anson s Law of Contract (30th edn, Oxford 2016).
V. Bridge M, ‘Does Anglo-Canadian Law Need A Doctrine Of Good Faith’ (1984) 9 Canadian Journal of Business
VI. Brown M, ‘Good faith – is there a new implied duty in English contract law’ https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/perspectives-events/publications/2013/07/good-faith--is-there-a-new-implied-duty-in-english/files/good_faith_jul2013_corp-alert/fileattachment/good_faith_jul2013_corp-alert.pdf
VII. Brownsword R, 'Two Concepts of Good Faith' (1994) 7 Journal of Contract Law
VIII. Brownsword R, Contract law: Themes for the Twenty-First Century (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2006).
IX. Collins, The Law of Contract, (4 th edn 2003), Smith, Atiyah’s Introduction to the Law of Contract Law, (3th edn, 2006).
X. Davies P, The Law of Contract (Oxford 2016).
XI. Davies P, “The Basis of Contractual Duties of Good Faith ” (2019) Vol.1 Journal of Commonwealth Law.
XII. Dorfman R, “The Regulation of Fairness and Duty of Good Faith in English Contract Law: A Relational Contract Theory Assessment” (2013) Vol.1 Leeds Journal of Law & Criminology.
XIII. Furmston M, Law of Contract (17th edn, Oxford 2017).
XIV. Harrison R, Good Faith in Sales (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1997).
XV. Goode R, ‘The Concept of “Good Faith” in English Law’ https://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/goode1.html
XVI. Harrison R, Good Faith in Sales (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1997).
XVII. Mckendrick E, Contract Law, Text, Cases, and Materials (8th edn, Oxford 2018).
XVIII. Osullivan J & Hilliard J, The Law of Contract (7th edn, Oxford 2016).
XIX. Poole J, Textbook on Contract Law (13th edn, Oxford 2016).
XX. Robertson E, “Yam Seng v International Trade Corporation – An Interim Report on the Implied Duty of Good Faith” (2015) Vol.4:1 Review of Law, Crime and Ethics
XXI. Sims V, “Good Faith in English Contract Law: Of Triggers and Concentric Circles” (2004) Vol.1 No.2 Ankara Law Review p.213
XXII. Steyn, "The Role of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Contract Law: A Hair-Shirt Philosophy?" (1991) 6 Denning Law Journal .
XXIII. Stone R and Devenney J, The Modern Law of Contract (Twelfth edn, 2017)
XXIV. Teubner G, "Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Ends Up in New Divergences" (1998) 61 Modern Law Review
-Case law
I. Berkeley Community Villages Ltd & Another v Pullen & Ors. [2007] EWHC 1330 (Ch(
II. General Nutrition Investment Company v Holland And Barrett & Anor [2017] EWHC 746 (Ch)
III. Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] 1 QB 433
IV. James Spencer & Co Ltd v Tame Valley Padding Co Ltd Unreported April 8,1998 CA.
V. Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd (Trading As Medirest) [2013] EWCA Civ 200.
VI. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v Cottonex Anstalt [2016] EWCA Civ 789
VII. Myers and another v Kestrel Acquisitions Ltd (Kestrel) and others [2015] EWCH 916 (Ch)
VIII. Pristol Groundschool Limited v Intelligent Data Capture Limited[2014] EWHC 2145 (Ch).
IX. Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2016] EWHC 3342 (Ch)
X. Stor Management AG v Atalaya Mining plc [2017] EWHC 425 (Comm)
XI. Walford v Miles [1992] 1 All ER 453
XII. Yam Seng Pte ltd v international Trade Corporation Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB) 1 All ER (Comm) 1321
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright and Licensing:
For all articles published in Journal of Legal Sciences, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work.
Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers: It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyrightholder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyrightholder).
Permission is required for: Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
Substantial extracts from anyones' works or a series of works.
Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.
Permission is not required for: Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.
Obtaining Permission
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Journal of Legal Sciences cannot publish material from other publications without permission.
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
