Agreements To Agree Good Faith

Id. at 880-81 (footnotes omitted). The court noted that the duty to negotiate in good faith “arises when the parties are under a contractual obligation to negotiate.” 883. 42 For the distinction between obligations of good faith in the English and codified civil systems of Europe, see Lord Bingham in Interfoto Picture Library Ltd./Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd.[1 Q.B 433, 439; Managing Director of Fair Trade vs. First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52, [2002] 1 A.C 481 at [17]. Nigerian courts will impose an obligation to negotiate in good faith if the terms of these clauses are secure and leave no room for speculation or speculation. The application of these clauses is based on the fact that they constitute binding contracts between the parties, which must be respected and respected in accordance with the principle pacta sunt servanda. 140 United Group Rail (2009) [2009] NSWCA 177, (2009) 74 N.S.W.L.R. 618, para. [74]. See Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd. v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 1 W.L.R.

1195 (and more generally on bona fide meeting and negotiation agreements). See Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 K.B 786; Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum N.L. (1992) C.L.R. 332, 349. 44 Cf. Interfoto [1989] 1 Q.B 433, p. 439 (Bingham L.J.). With regard to the duty to perform a contract in good faith, cf. Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in liquidation) [1995] 3 All E.R. 545; Phillips Electronique Grand Public SA v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd[1995] E.M.L.R. 472; Imperial Group Pension Trust Ltd v Imperial Tobacco Ltd.[1991] 1 W.L.R.

589; Balfour Beatty v Light Railway Ltd. (1996) 78 B.L.R. 42, 58. See also L├╝cke, H.K., Good Faith and Contractual Performance in Finn, P.D. (ed.), Essays on Contract (Sydney 1987) Google Scholar; Harrison, R., Good Faith in Sales (London 1997), 7Google Scholar; Burton, S.J., “Breach of Contract and the Common Law Duty to Perform in Good Faith” (1980) 94 Harv.L.Rev. 369CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The courts judge each case on the basis of its own facts. However, they are reluctant to annul a provision that should “have legal effect”, in particular where one of the parties has received a partial benefit or has invested on the basis of the contract5. to agree on certain contractual conditions at a future date, which is traditionally considered inapplicable. . . .