holding that implied covenant can be breached “both by exercising express discretion in a way inconsistent with a party’s reasonable expectations and by acting in ways not expressly excluded by the contract’s terms but which nevertheless bear adversely on the party’s reasonably expected benefits of the bargain”
How later courts described this case
- holding that implied covenant can be breached “both by exercising express discretion in a way inconsistent with a party’s reasonable expectations and by acting in ways not expressly excluded by the contract’s terms but which nevertheless bear adversely on the party’s reasonably expected benefits of the bargain”
- holding that “an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot 26 directly contradict an express contract term”
- “Arizona law recognizes that a party can breach the 27 implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing both by exercising express discretion in a way inconsistent with a party’s reasonable expectations and by acting in ways not expressly 28 excluded by the contract’s terms, but which nevertheless bear adversely on the party’s reasonably expected benefits of the bargain.”
- the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot contradict an express term of the contract
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BARKER, Judge,
concurring.
¶ 25 I join fully in parts B, C and D of the majority decision. I concur with the result in part A, dealing with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because I believe the result is required by the Arizona Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 490-93, ¶¶ 59-70 , 38 P.3d 12 , 28-31 (2002), which was decided after the trial of this matter.