UK: Good Faith Obligations In English Law

Last Updated: 19 July 2013
Article by Alistair Maughan and Sarah Wells

Unlike many civil law jurisdictions in Europe, English law has generally not recognised an implied obligation that contractual parties should perform their obligations in good faith. English courts take the view that parties should have the freedom to contract in the way that they wish, and so have been reluctant to intervene and impose overriding obligations of good faith. However, in recent years, the position has somewhat shifted, and Scottish law and certain common law jurisdictions (such as Canada and Australia), have begun to recognise a principle of good faith in some circumstances.

Against this background, two recent cases have thrown the issue of good faith in English law back into the spotlight. In the light of these cases now, is it now possible that a good faith obligation could be implied into an English law contract?

A pair of recent cases about the issue of whether a general duty of good faith can be implied into an English law contract illustrate the continuing truth of Charles Dickens' maxim that "The one great principle of English law is to make business for itself". And, in a through-the-looking-glass twist of which Dickens' fellow Victorian Lewis Carroll would have approved, the court considering a contract without a good faith clause found itself prepared to imply a duty of good faith after all; whereas the court examining a contract actually containing such a clause did exactly the opposite and rejected the concept that a good faith doctrine exists in English law.

This leaves negotiators of commercial contracts in something of a quandary. Should they include a good faith clause at all, or should they expressly disclaim any duty to act in good faith towards the other contracting party (which would be an interesting negotiating position to have to justify across the negotiating table)?

The General Position Under English Law

The general English law position in relation to an obligation to negotiate in good faith has long been that such a duty would be too uncertain to have binding force. Any attempt to assess damages arising out of a breach of such a duty would be incredibly difficult given that no one could know whether the negotiations would have been successful or not. Given that parties to a contract are on opposite sides of the negotiating table, any obligation imposed on these parties to carry on their negotiations in good faith would go against the adversarial nature of negotiations. Parties to a contract must be free to withdraw from negotiations, if they think it appropriate, or to threaten to withdraw in order to obtain improved contractual terms – i.e., they should be free to pursue their own interests and not just to act in "good faith" toward the opposing party.

Furthermore, once a contract has been entered into, historically there has been no general duty to perform the contract in good faith under English law. In contrast, English law has tended to operate on a case-by-case basis whereby specific solutions are developed in response to certain problems of unfairness. Only in certain sectors has a fiduciary-type concept akin to good faith crept in. This includes, for example, consumer contracts (where the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 provide that a standard contract term, i.e., one which has not been individually negotiated, is to be regarded as unfair if "contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract" (Reg. 5(1))) and commercial agency arrangements (whereby an agent must look after the interests of the principal and act in good faith).

Where a contract contains an express term requiring parties to act in good faith, the English courts have upheld such obligations - to a certain level. So, for example, in Berkeley Community Villages Ltd and another v Pullen and others, the court held that an obligation to act in "utmost good faith" required the parties to "observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in accordance with their actions which related to the Agreement". By contrast, in Gold Group Properties Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd, the court held that such an obligation would not "require either party to give up freely negotiated financial advantage clearly embedded in the contract".

Ultimately then, the prevailing view of English courts that have considered arguments of good faith has been that, once a contract has been entered into, the parties will have freely negotiated its terms and therefore, unless expressly provided for, such a good faith duty should not be implied by the courts. Short of breaching a term of the contract, parties should be free to pursue their own self-interests. A potential implied requirement for good faith could, it would seem, create too much contractual uncertainty.

However, two recent cases have thrown this reasoning into doubt.

Yam Seng Pte Limited V International Trade Corporation Limited ("Yam Seng")

This case related to a distribution agreement between a product supplier (International Trade) and a Singapore-based distributor (Yam Seng). International Trade originally contacted Yam Seng in January 2009 and the parties signed an agreement in May 2009 relating to the distribution in duty free outlets of Manchester United branded perfumes and toiletries. After a series of arguments about prices and product delivery, the distributor, Yam Seng, terminated the agreement early claiming repudiatory breach of contract by International Trade.

The contract (governed by English law) made no mention of a duty of good faith. Nevertheless, Yam Seng pleaded as part of its case that there should be an implied contractual term that the parties would deal with each other in good faith.

Most cases dealing with good faith are based on the foundation of the comments of Lord Justice Bingham in Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] 1 QB 433. He said "In many civil law systems, and perhaps in most legal systems outside the common law world, the law of obligations recognises and enforces an overriding principle that in making and carrying out contracts parties should act in good faith. This does not simply mean that they should not deceive each other, a principle which any legal system must recognise; its effect is perhaps most aptly conveyed by such metaphorical colloquialisms as 'playing fair', 'coming clean' or 'putting one's cards face upwards on the table.' It is in essence a principle of fair open dealing ... English law has, characteristically, committed itself to no such overriding principle but has developed piecemeal solutions in response to demonstrated problems of unfairness."

Consistent with this foundation, the court in the Yam Seng case held that English law is not at a stage where it recognises a requirement of good faith as a duty implied by law into all commercial contracts. Having repeated this apparently clear principle, the judge then held that a good faith duty can be implied "in an ordinary commercial contract based on the presumed intention of the parties". And, on this "give with one hand, take with the other" basis, the judge agreed that some terms which Yam Seng had argued ought to be implied on the basis of good faith could indeed be implied, albeit via the indirect route of construction of the contracting parties' intention.

Generally, a court may be prepared to imply a term if it considers that the parties intended that term to form part of their contract: the term must be so obvious that it goes without saying; necessary to give business efficacy to the contract; or something which "though tacit, formed part of the contract which the parties made for themselves". Recently, this process has been expanded and implication has been analysed in relation to the construction of the contract taken as a whole, i.e., what would the contract, read as a whole against the relevant background, reasonably be understood to mean? The relevant background would include "not only matters of fact known to the parties but also shared values and norms of behaviour". Such norms could include "general social acceptance" or just be specific to that trade or industry.

The court in the Yam Seng case assessed the parties' background in the course of assessing what could be implied in relation to good faith. The court stated that it would be hard to envisage any contract where honesty was not required in its performance. Hence good faith would, in almost every case, encompass honesty and, it was held, it would also include the observance of standards of commercial dealing. These are standards which go beyond honesty but are so generally accepted that the contracting parties would reasonably be understood to apply their provisions without explicitly stating them in the contract. Such standards would include not performing the contract in a way which is "improper" or "unconscionable".

The court then considered factors which could be deemed to be part of "good faith" in certain scenarios. It held that, in certain scenarios, there may be an expectation that information would be shared: so, deliberate omissions of information may amount to bad faith rather than bad faith just being dishonesty. The court held that this would be particularly so in "relational contracts" in which long-term commitment, mutual trust and loyalty were present, e.g., outsourcing or joint venture contracts, franchise agreements and long-term distributorship agreements (as was the case with Yam Seng and International Trade).

In arguing against the traditionally held view that the principle of freedom of contract prevents an obligation of good faith from being implied, the court held that the right approach is to address each case on its facts and consider whether good faith can be implied "through a process of construction of the contract", i.e., in accordance with the way the common law works. As the implication would be based on the parties' intentions, and the context of the contract, no illegitimate restriction on the freedom of the parties was being put in place because the parties could modify the scope of any implied duty of good faith by express terms within the contract itself.

Mid Essex Hospital Services Nhs Trust V Compass Group Uk And Ireland Ltd (Trading As Medirest) ("Medirest")

This case concerned a catering contract between a hospital (the Trust) and a supplier (Medirest). Certain service levels were included within this contract and, when the catering service provided by Medirest did not meet these levels, the Trust awarded itself both service credits and service failure points (of which an accumulation of the latter would allow the Trust to terminate the contract). One reason for the attention that the case has attracted has been the eye-catching nature of some of the service credit deductions (for example, Ł84,000 for a chocolate mousse one day past its use-by date).

The contract between the Trust and Medirest also contained an express provision of good faith as follows:

"The Trust and the Contractor will co-operate with each other in good faith and will take all reasonable action as is necessary for the efficient transmission of information and instructions and to enable the Trust ... to derive the full benefit of the Contract".

A dispute arose over which party had the right to terminate the contract but, in considering the issues in this case, the matter of whether the parties were under a general obligation to co-operate in good faith under the above provision also came into play.

When assessing whether there was a general duty to co-operate in good faith under the contract, the court held that the duty in this case was linked to the two purposes only, i.e., on a matter of contractual interpretation, the duty to co-operate in good faith did not extend to a more general duty but rather only to enable "efficient transmission of information and instructions" and enable "the derive the full benefit of the Contract".

This case, although supporting Yam Seng in holding that the establishment of any duty of good faith would be objectively assessed and established through the process of construction of the contract, also shows that where a contract has an express provision of good faith and such a provision is linked to particular circumstances, no further implication will take place – the express provisions of the contract hold true. Furthermore, unless there is intent to the contrary, a narrow interpretation of such a provision is likely to occur.


In the Yam Seng case, the court in question was the High Court and so the specific issues in that case have not been subjected to higher judicial review. However, the points considered remain valid in relation to assessing whether an obligation of good faith could potentially be implied, and the case remains useful for clarifying the aspects which go together to make up good faith, as well as the importance of such an obligation in long-term, service-based "relational" contracts.

It appears that an obligation to perform contracts in good faith will not arise in every agreement but, if certain circumstances are present, the notion that no such term would ever be implied no longer holds true. In Yam Seng, it was made clear that good faith encompasses a number of aspects, of which honesty and adherence to certain standards of commercial dealing are consistent with recent interpretations of good faith and would be expected in almost every contract. Other terms, such as a higher level of communication and co-operation, may arise in unique circumstances including, as an example, long-term, service-based relational contracts. In each case, the contractual background of the parties will be highly relevant to what "good faith" is ultimately held to mean.

Ultimately then, it appears that the safest way for parties to establish whether an implied duty of good faith would be held to be present is to expressly provide whether such an obligation does or does not apply in the contract, given that any implied term of good faith would be established "through a process of construction of the contract".

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Alistair Maughan
Sarah Wells
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.