John v James
61.Mr Richards then addressed the specific draft pleading of an implied obligation on Domino “to act in good faith in relation to the exploitation of the Masters under the 2001 Agreement”. He submitted that Mr Hebden had identified neither what the alleged obligation of good faith required nor how it had come about. As the content of any implied duty of good faith is variable and heavily dependent on context (
- Introduction
- Procedural history
- The applications
- The SJ Application
- Jameel v Dow Jones and Co
- The Amendment Application
- Conduct of the hearing
- Relevant factual background
- Term
- RELEASE COMMITMENT
- The legal test for permission to amend
- Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International
- The proposed amendments for which permission is sought
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith
- Proposed reliance on clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of 2001 Agreement
- Submissions / assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – inconsistency of pleadings – submissions
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – inconsistency of pleadings – assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – substance – submissions
- Panayiotou
- Nichols
- Schroeder
- John v James
- Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – consequences of breach – submissions
- Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright
- Crosstown Music Co LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd & ors
- Crosstown
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – consequences of breach – assessment
- Sullivan