The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court`s decision in the first case and found that the duty to act in good faith was limited to the purposes set out in the clause: the transmission of information and the full use of the contract to the client. The Tribunal found that economic common sense did not favour the addition of a comprehensive duty of cooperation of trust in circumstances in which the treaty was so precise in point 3.5. The Court of Appeal pointed out that a duty of good faith, as part of an express duty to act in good faith, would mean? In general, the duty of good faith is a negative obligation to refrain from acts of bad faith, but rather to impose a positive obligation to act in good faith, although the English courts have, in a case, imposed a positive obligation to disclose all essential facts. It is important that explicit obligations to act in good faith do not infringe contractual rights (for example). (B termination rights) or force a party to renounce its commercial interests. “The implication of a duty of good faith will only be possible if the language of the treaty, which is seen in the context of it, allows it. It therefore does not reflect a specific rule of interpretation for this category of contract. However, this flexibility is limited. It was agreed to “respect” certain principles, including for all “open, honest, clear and reliable” cases so as not to create a duty of good faith.
Moreover, the express duty to act in good faith is often interpreted in a restrictive manner by the English courts, so that it applies only to certain provisions and not to the agreement as a whole. Whether a contract is a specific contract is specific to the facts. The criteria considered in determining whether a contract is relational are not limited to the question of whether (i) is a long-term contract; (ii) there is a high degree of cooperation between the parties; and (iii) one or both parties make significant investments in the company. Some joint venture agreements, franchise agreements and long-term distribution agreements could be examples of relationship agreements. In some legal systems, a violation of the tacit confederation can also lead to an unlawful act, for example. B A.C. Shaw Construction v. Washoe County, 105 Nevada 913, 915, 784 p.2d 9, 10 (1989).  This rule is most prevalent in insurance law where the insurer`s implicit violation of Confederation may lead to an unlawful act called bad faith in insurance.