Opinion ID: 2823203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Remaining Contract Claim: Count 4

Text: The plaintiffs’ last argument on appeal is that they have a viable cause of action against Chip under count 4, breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, because it is a separate and independent cause of action. 9 This Court has explained that “[v]irtually every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the parties.” 9 During the course of the summary judgment proceedings, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed count 5, and conceded that summary judgment should be granted on count 4 in favor of Pinelli because he was not a party to the purchase and sales agreement. Therefore, the only remaining contract claim is count 4 against Chip. - 18 - Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. v. Antonelli, 790 A.2d 1113, 1115 (R.I. 2002) (quoting Centerville Builders, Inc. v. Wynne, 683 A.2d 1340, 1342 (R.I. 1996)). The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ensures that “contractual objectives may be achieved,” Ide Farm & Stable, Inc. v. Cardi, 110 R.I. 735, 739, 297 A.2d 643, 645 (1972), and that “neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract.” 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 370 at 356 (2004). However, we have explained that a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not create an independent cause of action separate and apart from a claim for breach of contract. See A. A. A. Pool Service & Supply, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 121 R.I. 96, 99-100, 395 A.2d 724, 725-26 (1978). Accordingly, the hearing justice properly granted Chip’s motion for summary judgment with respect to count 4. IV