Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BDAZZ who wrote (62882)	4/20/2007 12:00:28 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 196965

Isn't there also an understanding of "good faith" in contracts, in that one party does not attempt to turn sleeze and use the terms of a contract to steal the property of the other. Wouldn't this also void the respective terms? Yes. In most, but not every contract exists an implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing. Sometimes the implied covenant may be in conflict with explicit terms in the contract. [One example that's been litigated is "at-will" employment contracts.] Here, you are likely correct. It's just another cause of action listed in Q's complaint, but it's not one that would lead to early settlement. Consider that breach of the covenant does not necessarily enable a court to determine "how much" NOK should pay in royalties during the option period for use of Q's IP. Course of performance does. It enables a court to look beyond the four corners of the contract to infer terms not explicitly addressed, such as those that would apply under the scenario NOK has now created.