Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): See, Trial Court Memorandum Order and Non-Jury Verdict, 6/26/01, at 6-7. The court found that because of its “true motivation,” Sun did not inspect Conomos’s work in good faith. See, id. The record reflects that following Conomos’s cessation of work, Sun granted the incomplete segments of the job to the next highest bidder, MP Industries. Id. at 4. It shows that MP had similar difficulties in satisfying Sun’s foreman, and a mediator stepped in and determined that MP’s work was acceptable. Id. ¶20 When an obligation necessary to Conomos’s enjoyment of the contract is not expressly provided but implied as a necessary implication of the contract, Sun’s good faith performance is necessary to satisfy the implied obligation. Sun’s lack of good faith performance, A.2d 247, 256 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Amoco Oil Co. v. Burns, 268 Pa.Super. 390, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an insurer has a duty to act with the utmost good faith towards its insured (B) holding that parties to contract have an implied obligation to put forth a good faith effort to fulfill the conditions of the contract (C) holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously (D) holding that if a direct supervisor who had the responsibility to stop harassment knew of and failed to act against it the plaintiff has no further obligation to bring it to the employers attention (E) holding that an employers obligation to an employee to act in good faith extends only to the performance of those contractual duties it has chosen to assume
Output (English): holding that if a direct supervisor who had the responsibility to stop harassment knew of and failed to act against it the plaintiff has no further obligation to bring it to the employers attention