In Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, the Supreme Court of Canada found that good faith is a “general principle of organization” that underpins contract law and declared a new common law obligation of honest performance. The decision concerns the obligations arising from the performance of a contract, but it has a significant impact on the legal characterisation of contract negotiations. Canadian courts have generally held that a good faith agreement is a simple agreement agreement and is therefore not secure enough to meet the requirements of entering into the contract. The Supreme Court`s analysis of good faith supports the view that a good faith agreement is a treaty; A party to such an agreement, which does not act honestly or in good faith in the conduct of the negotiations, may therefore be liable for compensation in the event of a breach. This paper examines the analysis behind this conclusion and identifies the issues arising from it, including the importance of honesty and faith in this context and the problem of damage assessment. 24 For the New Zealand Court of Appeal`s approval of Walford v Miles, see Wellington City Council v Body Corporate 51702 (Wellington)  3 N.Z.L.R. 486. See also Elizabeth Bay Developments Pty Ltd.v Boral Building Services Pty. Ltd. (1995) 36 N.S.W.L.R. 709.
For the reluctance of the Australian courts to impose a duty to judgment in good faith, see z.B. Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 240 C.L.R. 45. See also Peden, “Integrating Terms of Good Faith in Contract Law in Australia,” pp. 222, id. 880-81 (footnotes omitted). The court noted that the duty to negotiate in good faith “arises when the parties are under a contractual obligation to negotiate.” Id. at 883.
The second applicant, Southern Fairway Investments Pty Ltd, concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the defendant. . . . .