The Interplay Between Claims of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Breach of Contract
In this article, Lara Flath and Judy Flumenbaum discuss New York courts' treatment of the tension between a "good faith limitation on the exercise of a contract right" and "using the implied covenant of good faith to create new duties that negate explicit rights under a contract." They explore the degree to which courts have permitted good faith and fair dealing claims independent of breach of contract claims.
August 10, 2022 at 11:45 AM
6 minute read
To begin, under New York law, "all contracts imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of performance." 511 W. 232nd Owners v. Jennifer Realty Co., 98 N.Y.2d 144, 153 (2002). The implied covenant "embraces a pledge that 'neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract.'" Id. (citation omitted). Further, when a "contract contemplates the exercise of discretion," the party with discretion is bound by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing "not to act arbitrarily or irrationally in exercising that discretion." Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 389 (1995). When one party to a contract deceives the other party and delays or prevents the exercise of that party's contractual rights, that party breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See Richbell Info. Servs., 309 A.D.2d at 302 ("[O]ne has an apparently unlimited right under a contract, that right may not be exercised solely for personal gain in such a way as to deprive the other party of the fruits of the contract"); 25 Bay Terrace Assocs., L.P. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 144 A.D.3d 665, 667 (2d Dep't 2016) (upholding an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim alleging that defendant had prepared a "factually inaccurate" report).
New York courts have held, however, that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot negate express provisions or rights in a contract. See Transit Funding Assocs. v. Cap. One Equip. Fin., 149 A.D.3d 23, 30 (1st Dep't 2017) (finding no breach of implied covenant where "complained-of conduct consists entirely of acts it was authorized to do by the contract"); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Xerox, 25 A.D.3d 309, 310 (1st Dep't 2006) ("The covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be construed so broadly as to effectively nullify other express terms of the contract, or to create independent contractual rights."). Moreover, a good faith and fair dealing claim is "redundant if it merely pleads that defendant did not act in good faith in performing its contractual obligations." Danusiar v. Auditchain USA, No. 20-CV-1477 (KNF), 2020 WL 6126378, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2020).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Commercial Division Finds Defendant Engaged in Unfair Competition Against Plaintiff
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250