Рус Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 2054,   Articles in work: 303 Declined articles: 784 

Back to contents

Law and Politics

The role of good faith in relational contracts in common law countries
Vinokurov Sergei Nikolaevich

Post-graduate student, the department of Civil Law and Procedure and Private International Law, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia; Master of Jurisprudence; Lawyer

117198, Russia, gorod Moskva, g. Moscow, ul. Miklukho-Maklaya, 6, of. 359
Другие публикации этого автора



The subject of this research is the role of good faith in relational contracts and the key aspects of the theory of relation contracts adopted in common law countries. The research relies on the case law of England, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. On the example of case law, the author attempts to elucidate the content of requirements of good faith in relational contracts, as well as bring forth a hypothesis of recognition of requirements of good faith conduct as an implied obligation for relational contracts. Moreover, this work demonstrates court rulings of English courts rejecting the connection with requirement of good faith in relational contracts and expresses the opinion that the process of search for place and role of requirements of good faith conduct in relational contracts is still ongoing. The main conclusion of the conducted research is the determination of the role and content of good faith in relational contracts, as well as description of the key concepts of the theory of relational contracts. The author presents demonstrative examples of court rulings of the common law countries, which establish a connection between good faith and relational contract, and set requirements for good faith conduct as an implied condition for long-term relational contracts.

Keywords: Canada, USA, England, precedent, law, relational, contract, good faith, New Zealand, Australia



Article was received:


Review date:


Publish date:


This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

S. Macaulay, Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study, American Sociological Review, 1963, Volume 28, № 1. pp. 55 — 67.
I.R. Macneil, The Many Features of Contract, University of Southern California Law Review, Volume 47, 1974, p. 691.
I.R. Macneil, Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries, 94 NW. U. L. REV., 2000, p. 881.
J.K. Setear, An Iterative Perspective on Treaties: A Synthesis of International Relations Theory and International Law, 1996, 37 Harv. Int'l L. J. 139, pp. 176–213.
A.B. Leichtling, Casenote: Scheck v. Burger King Corp.: Why Burger King Cannot Have Its Own Way With Its Franchisees, 1994, 48 U. Miami L. Rev., pp. 671, 682.
D.M. Rousseau, S.B. Sitkin, R.S. Burt and E. Camerer, Not So Different after All: A Cross-discipline View of Trust, et al., Academy of Management Review, 1998, Vol. 23., p. 395.
I.R. Macneil, Contracting Worlds and Essential Contract Theory, 2000, 9 S.&L., p. 431.
R. Austen-Baker, Comprehensive Contract Theory: A Four Norm Model of Contract Relations, 2009, 25 Journal of Contract Law, pp. 219-220.
I.R. Macneil, Whither Contracts?, 1969, 21 Journal of Legal Education, pp. 403, 418-419.
I.R. Macneil, The New Social Contract, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980, pp. 40-44.
S. Macaulay, An Empirical View of Contract, 1985, Wisconsin Law Review, pp. 465, 468.
Case: Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programs Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 348.
B. Misztal, Trust in Modern Societies, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996, p. 121.
Case: Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB).
R. Graf and J. Perrien, The Role of Trust and Satisfaction in a Relationship: The Case of High Tech Firms and Banks, 2005, EMAC (Presentation), pp. 4, 5.
Case: Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900.
I.R. Macneil, Values in Contract: Internal and External, Northwestern University Law Review 78, 1983, pp. 340-418.
I. Prim-Allaz and J. Perrien, Présentation d'un document de travail: The Relevance of Macneil's Relational Norms to Understand the Exit of an Interorganizational Relationship, 2000, First Nordic Workshop on Relationship Dissolution, Kuusamo, Finlande, 4.
R.E. Speidel, The Characteristics and Challenges of Relational Contracts, Northwestern University law review 94 (3), 2000 , pp. 835 – 838.
H.H. Perritt Jr., Implied Covenant: Anachronism or Augur?, 20 Seton Hall L. Rev., 1990, pp. 716, 717.
Case: HIH Casualty v Chase Manhattan Bank [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 61.
Case: Socimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 558.
Case: Bhasin v Hrynew [2014] 3 SCR 494, The Canadian Supreme Court.
Case: Prophecy Mining No Liability v Kiwi Gold No Liability, High Court of New Zealand, Auckland, CP 2264/88, 8 August 1990.
Case: Williams & Adams Ltd v Computer Systems Implementation Ltd, High Court of New Zealand, Wellington, CP 215/92, 9 March 1995, Judge Ellis.
John Burrows, Jeremy Finn and Stephen Todd, Law of Contract in New Zealand, Fourth Edition, Lexis Nexis, Wellington, 2012, [2.2.6].
Case: Bobux Marketing Ltd v Raynor Marketing Ltd [2002] 1 NZLR 506.
Case: Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments, [2006] 231 ALR 663, at 704 per Judge Callinan.
Case: Shepard v Felt and Textiles Australia Ltd, [1931] 45 CLR 359, at 378 per Judge Dixon.
Case: Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd, [1979] 144 CLR 596 at 607-608.
Case: KM.C. Co. v. Irving Trust Co 757 F.2d (6th Cir. 1985).
Case: TSG Building Services PLC v South Anglia Housing Limited [2013] EWCH 1151.
John Gava, Can Contract Law be Justified on Economic Grounds?, 2006, 25 University of Queensland L.J. 253, p. 261.
Case: Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 200.
Case: Globe Motors Inc v TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 396.
Case: MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Cottonex Anstalt [2016] EWCA Civ 789