No / Over the past two decades, protecting contractual parties’ reasonable expectations has incrementally gained judicial recognition in English contract law. In contrast, however, the similar ‘doctrine’ of ‘policyholder’s reasonable expectations’ has been largely rejected in English insurance law. This is injurious, firstly, to both the consumer and business policyholder’s reasonable expectations of coverage of particular risks, and, secondly, to consumer policyholder’s reasonable expectations of bonuses in with-profits life insurance. To remedy these problems, this book argues for an incremental but definite acceptance of the conception of policyholder’s reasonable expectations in English insurance law. It firstly discusses the homogeneity between insurance law and contract law, as well as the role of (reasonable) expectations and their relevance to the emerging duty of good faith in contract law. Secondly, following a review and re-characterisation of the American insurance law ‘doctrine’ of reasonable expectations, the book addresses the conventional English objections to the reasonable expectations approach in insurance law. In passing, it also rethinks the approach to the protection of policyholder’s reasonable expectations of bonuses in with-profits life insurance through a revisit to the (in)famous case Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2000] UKHL 39, particularly to its relevant business and regulatory background.

no / Singapore commercial contract law has taken an Asian perspective in respect of express terms of good faith in the negotiation of contract. In general, however, it adheres to the English contract law orthodoxy regarding good faith. More specifically, Singapore, like England, does not recognize a general duty or principle of good faith and it is reluctant to imply a duty of good faith into a contract. However, as a hub of international trade and a rising forum for commercial dispute resolution, Singapore will have a stronger need to reconcile the differences in good faith in contract law between the English/Commonwealth and the European-Asian legal traditions. Conventional wisdom and international commercial law instruments in this respect are not as helpful as one would expect for such a need. Instead, to an enlightening but limited extent, the “organizing principle” approach in Bhasin v Hrynew could be useful for setting up a framework for reconciling the differences. This framework could consist of an organising principle of (honouring) reasonable expectations, a duty of honesty, and a duty of fair dealing. The framework realistically concretises good faith into the three components, all of which are essentially objective and ascertainable in specific factual matrix and are well-recognised in both common law and civil law.

La gouvernance des sociétés par actions canadiennes accorde une place aux créanciers, qui contribuent considérablement à leur financement. Les créanciers fournissent une prestation en échange d’une promesse d’être payé plus tard, de sorte qu’ils sont en conflit d’agence avec d’autres parties prenantes de la société par actions, particulièrement les dirigeants. Principale voie procédurale des litiges en droit des sociétés, le recours en cas d’abus (ou « recours en oppression ») permet d’endiguer certains aspects de ce conflit d’agence en octroyant aux tribunaux de larges pouvoirs pour pallier les abus. Cette intervention judiciaire s’exprime par la théorie des attentes raisonnables, selon laquelle le tribunal doit protéger non seulement les droits des parties, mais également leurs attentes raisonnables. La jurisprudence permet de conclure à des attentes raisonnables relativement à l’information fournie par la société, au patrimoine social et au processus décisionnel des dirigeants. Elle laisse également entrevoir une attente raisonnable à l’égard des modifications du partage des risques découlant d’un événement imprévisible. / Creditors feature prominently in the corporate governance of Canadian business corporations and significantly contribute to their funding. Creditors perform in exchange for a promise to be paid later, so that they are in an agency conflict with other stakeholders of the corporation, especially managers. The main procedural route for litigation in corporate law, the oppression remedy helps curb some aspects of the agency conflict by granting courts broad powers to remedy oppressive conduct. This judicial intervention is expressed through the theory of reasonable expectations, which states that the court must not only protect the legal rights of the parties but also their reasonable expectations. The case law shows that creditors have reasonable expectations toward the information provided by the corporation, its assets and the decision-making process of managers and directors. It also suggests a reasonable expectation with respect to changes in the sharing of risks arising from an unforeseeable event.

This examination of the common law obligation of good faith in the performance and enforcement of commercial contracts in Australia seeks to achieve a number of objectives. First, to chart the historical development of the implied good faith obligation. Secondly, to identify a number of issues that remain unresolved at Australian lower court level. Thirdly, to consider five doctrinal approaches that could be adopted by the High Court when ultimately confronted by the competing claims and tensions that have proven divisive in the courts below. Fourthly, to assess each approach against three identified benchmarks. The essential thesis is that good faith should be implied, as a matter of law, in commercial contracts that are relational in nature with an additional call being made for the High Court to explicitly recognise that the underlying basis of the implied good faith obligation is the reasonable expectations of the contractual parties. This approach is the one approach that satisfies all three benchmarks and provides the most satisfactory resolution of the issues that presently bedevil the commercial good faith debate in Australia.