On a brief perusal of the decision from the fastnesses of China, I confess to being pretty unimpressed with the reasoning.
(1) I don't think it will lead to certainty. Replacing a situation where you had to argue for a defined duty under defined circumstances with the idea that it all depends on a form of words like "good faith" which, like being mimsy with the borogroves, can mean anything or nothing, doesn't seem to me to conduce to precision of thought.
(2) The issue was: did B have a right to renewal of his arrangement if he behaved himself and C had no objectively reasonable justification for terminating it? Or did C have the right to put an end to it for any reason, good or bad? That's a matter that should depend simply on interpretation, and which should be decided in its own terms, not on reasoning from imprecise premises such as good faith.
Andrew
Sent from my iPad
Today the Supreme Court of Canada held that there is a general duty of good faith in contracts in common law Canada:
[33] In my view, it is time
to take two incremental steps in order to make the common law less unsettled and piecemeal, more coherent and more just. The first step is to acknowledge that good faith contractual performance is a general organizing principle of the common law of contract
which underpins and informs the various rules in which the common law, in various situations and types of relationships, recognizes obligations of good faith contractual performance. The second is to recognize, as a further manifestation of this organizing
principle of good faith, that there is a common law duty which applies to all contracts to act honestly in the performance of contractual obligations.
[73] In my view, we should.
I would hold that there is a general duty of honesty in contractual performance. This means simply that parties must not lie or otherwise knowingly mislead each other about matters directly linked to the performance of the contract. This does not impose a
duty of loyalty or of disclosure or require a party to forego advantages flowing from the contract; it is a simple requirement not to lie or mislead the other party about one’s contractual performance.
Lionel