Opinion ID: 1349036
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Existence of fundamental public policy

Text: We next consider whether application of the law chosen by the parties would be contrary to a fundamental policy of California. We perceive no fundamental policy of California requiring the application of California law to Seawinds's claims based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The covenant is not a government regulatory policy designed to restrict freedom of contract, but an implied promise inserted in an agreement to carry out the presumed intentions of contracting parties. ( Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 689-690 [254 Cal. Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373] ( Foley ) [When a court enforces the implied covenant it is in essence acting to protect `the interest in having promises performed' [citation]  the traditional realm of a contract action  rather than to protect some general duty to society which the law places on an employer without regard to the substance of its contractual obligations to its employee.].) Seawinds directs us to no authority exalting the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing over the express covenant of these parties that Hong Kong law shall govern their agreement. We have located none. Because Seawinds has identified no fundamental policy of our state at issue in its essentially contractual dispute with Nedlloyd, the second exception to the rule of section 187 of the Restatement does not apply.