Get marketing news you’ll actually want to read

Contract law rests on the principle that parties will act honestly and fairly toward one another, beyond the literal terms of any agreement. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing fills gaps left by drafting, ensuring neither side undermines the contract's legitimate purposes. To bring a claim, you must show that the conduct in question violated the covenant, not merely that terms were unmet at a technical level. Courts scrutinize actions that subvert the intent of the contract, reduce the other party’s reasonable expectations, or exploit ambiguities for advantage. A successful claim often hinges on linking specific acts to the covenant's standard of fair dealing.

Before launching a claim, gather the factual backbone that demonstrates how conduct deviated from fair expectations. This includes a chronology of communications, decisions, and handling of disputed obligations. Identify who controlled critical information, whether internal policies guided behavior, and if any choices appeared designed to disadvantage the other party. Documentation matters deeply: emails, memos, meeting notes, and external correspondence can illuminate motive and timing. A well-prepared narrative helps avoid disputes over whether there was a contractual breach or merely an interpretation difference. Your theory should tie each adverse action directly to the covenant’s obligation of good faith.

The covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not replace contract terms; it supplements them. It imposes a baseline standard that prevents opportunistic behavior, such as withholding information necessary to fulfill the contract, or manipulating deadlines to harm the other party. Breaches often involve concealment of material facts, bad-faith negotiations, or deliberate delays that undermine performance. To claim breach, you typically must show a pattern of conduct, not an isolated misstep. Courts look for a consistent course of conduct inconsistent with the contract’s stated purposes. A persuasive claim will demonstrate how the challenged actions frustrated the contract’s core objectives.

Legal standards vary by jurisdiction, but several common threads recur. The covenant is most commonly invoked where the contract grants discretion that could be exercised in bad faith. If a party uses discretion to intentionally deny expected benefits, or to coerce unwarranted concessions, that may support a claim. Elements often include a breach of implied duty, causation, and damages flowing from the breach. Some jurisdictions require that the party exercising discretion acted in bad faith specifically, while others look to whether the actions were arbitrary or capricious. Understanding local pleading requirements and standards is essential before filing.

When preparing the complaint, craft a clear theory linking conduct to harm. Describe how the alleged bad-faith actions altered the course of performance, increased costs, or deprived you of anticipated benefits. Attach documentary evidence showing timelines, decision points, and outcomes that would not have occurred absent the improper conduct. Causation often hinges on showing that the breach of the covenant caused measurable damages, whether financial loss, lost profits, or reputational injuries. In some cases, non-monetary relief such as reformation of the contract or specific performance may be appropriate if damages cannot adequately compensate. Your request for relief should reflect the remedy you seek.

Many disputes involve discretionary provisions, such as approvals, rate determinations, or performance milestones. When you believe bad faith influenced an exercise of such discretion, articulate how the decision-making process deviated from standard practice. Courts typically require a showing that the controlling party acted with improper motive or with bias inconsistent with the contract’s purpose. To strengthen your case, compare the challenged decision to comparable, non-discriminatory actions in similar circumstances. Consider whether alternative routes were available that would have achieved the contract’s aims without harming the other party. This comparative analysis can illuminate the covenant’s breach in a concrete, persuasive way.

Early-stage pleadings should provide a coherent narrative, not a catalog of grievances. Begin with the contract’s purpose and the expected performance framework, then explain how the defendant’s actions distorted that framework. Each factual allegation should be tied to supporting evidence and anchored in dates, names, and documents. Avoid generalities; instead, present precise instances where information was concealed, deadlines manipulated, or negotiation stances shifted in bad faith. A strong complaint will anticipate defenses, such as arguing that discretion was exercised within contractual authority. By addressing potential counterarguments upfront, you improve the likelihood of a favorable motion practice and set the stage for discovery.

Discovery is a pivotal phase for edifying the covenant claim. Seek communications, internal memos, access to internal guidelines, and any policies governing discretion. Request correspondence involving decision-makers, rationale for timing, and any changes in course that did not align with prior representations. Depositions can reveal motives and reveal inconsistencies between what was said and what was done. Use expert testimony if necessary to interpret disputed standards or to quantify damages. A methodical discovery plan helps prevent leaks of favorable information to the other side and preserves the integrity of the claim as it matures toward trial or settlement.

Remedies for breach of the implied covenant range from monetary compensation to equitable relief, depending on the contract and jurisdiction. Damages should reflect both direct losses and reasonably foreseeable consequences of the breach. In some situations, specific performance or reformation may be available if money damages are inadequate to repair the harm or to restore the contract’s balance. When seeking settlement, present a clear demand letter outlining the breach, supporting facts, and desired remedy. Consider whether a negotiated resolution could preserve ongoing business relationships and lead to faster closure. Courts often encourage settlements that align with contract purposes, avoiding protracted litigation.

Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution can be attractive options for covenant claims. Many contracts include arbitration clauses that require selection of a forum and a timing framework. ADR can preserve confidentiality, reduce costs, and speed up resolution. However, the arbitrator’s standards for evaluating implied covenant claims may differ from those in court, so tailor pleadings accordingly. Mediation can also be valuable, especially when both sides seek practical remedies rather than strictly punitive outcomes. Regardless of forum, a well-structured case with precise factual support improves leverage and increases the likelihood of a favorable result.

For individuals and small businesses, the implied covenant claim often hinges on credible documentation and consistent narrative. Keep a meticulous record of all interactions related to the contract, including emails, messages, and logs of decision points. When discussing settlement options, maintain a professional tone and focus on the contract’s purpose and the anticipated benefits of performance. Do not rely solely on legal rhetoric; instead, demonstrate how the defendant’s conduct undermined the contract’s goals in practical, observable terms. If you anticipate a dispute, begin with a clear internal assessment of damages and your best strategic remedies. This proactive approach informs both negotiation and judicial strategy.

Finally, consult with counsel early to tailor strategies to your jurisdiction’s standards. An experienced attorney can help determine whether the claim should be framed as a breach of the covenant or as a breach of contract with an implied duty, depending on the facts. They can also spot procedural quirks, timing issues, and mechanics for discovery requests. A well-timed filing, a solid evidentiary foundation, and a focused liability theory increase the odds of a favorable outcome. Even when settlement is possible, a thoughtful, well-supported claim communicates seriousness and fosters credible negotiations toward a just resolution.