# Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer

> Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 16, 2002 · 202 Ariz. 420

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9797386

## Case

- **Full name:** BIKE FASHION CORP., an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee for Lorne Kramer; Southam Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; And Prospect Holdings, Ltd., an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee and Successor in Interest of Dennis Porter, Syndicate Enterprises, Ltd., Donald Fast, Fast Holdings, Inc., and Harvey Gould (Or,) Alternatively, Those Persons Individually in the Event Assignments Were Ineffective, Individually, And, if Necessary, Derivatively on Behalf of the Bell 20/21 Partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert F. KRAMER and Ann M. Kramer, Husband and Wife; Mount Royal Management, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Regis Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Freeport Financial Corp., an Arizona Corporation; Capital Development Corp., an Arizona Corporation; M.L. Sweeney; R.C. Romero; Alport Holdings, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; Wardley Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; A.K. Basu; Thomas Kitching, Defendants-Appellees; Robert F. Kramer and Ann M. Kramer, Husband and Wife; Regis Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Mount Royal Management, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, v. Bike Fashion Corp., an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee for Lorne Kramer; Southam Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; And Prospect Holdings, Ltd. an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee and Successor in Interest of Dennis Porter, Syndicate Enterprises, Ltd., Donald Fast, Fast Holdings, Inc., and Harvey Gould (Or,) Alternatively, Those Persons Individually in the Event Assignments Were Ineffective, Individually, And, if Necessary, Derivatively on Behalf of the Bell 20/21 Partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arizona
- **Decided:** May 16, 2002
- **Citations:** 202 Ariz. 420; 373 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 12; 46 P.3d 431; 2002 Ariz. App. LEXIS 73
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Barker
- **Judges:** Ehrlich, Barker, Hall
- **Cited by:** 74 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9797386

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 reasonabl…
- holding that “an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot 26 directly contradict an express contract term”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9797386. Public record. Not legal advice.