On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi > have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW > machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the > waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate > to open the door? > > - > > You maybe invoking a concept which at present doesn't exist in US contract law. The concept of " Duty of honest contractual performance " was only adopted in Canada in 2014. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_honest_contractual_performance <<Recognizing a duty of honest performance flowing directly from the common law organizing principle of good faith is a modest, incremental step. This new duty of honest performance is a general doctrine of contract law that imposes as a contractual duty a minimum standard of honesty in contractual performance. It operates irrespective of the intentions of the parties, and is to this extent analogous to equitable doctrines which impose limits on the freedom of contract, such as the doctrine of unconscionability. However, the precise content of honest performance will vary with context ...>> However, it seems the foundation of most contract law in the US is the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law) <<In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract. A lawsuit (or a cause of action) based upon the breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when he or she uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform his or her contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances and understandings between the parties.>> Please read and compare the two principles and you will see the question you pose appears to carry no legal significance in the context of "the covenant good faith and fair dealing". Harry
