Opinion ID: 2552490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith

Text: [¶ 23] Whitlock claims that the JPB breached an implied duty which existed in the contract to use good faith efforts to obtain the concurrence of the funding agencies. In Scherer Constr., LLC v. Hedquist Constr., Inc., 2001 WY 23, ¶ 24, 18 P.3d 645, ¶ 24 (Wyo.2001), we adopted § 205 of the Restatement, Second, Contracts and held that parties to a commercial contract may bring a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based upon a contract theory. Because we have said that a valid contract existed between Whitlock and the JPB, it follows that a covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in the contract. [¶ 24] The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that a party's actions be consistent with the agreed common purpose and justified expectations of the other party.... The purpose, intentions and expectations of the parties should be determined by considering the contract language and the course of dealings between and conduct of the parties. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing may not, however, be construed to establish new, independent rights or duties not agreed upon by the parties. In other words, the concept of good faith and fair dealing is not a limitless one. The implied obligation must arise from the language used or it must be indispensable to effectuate the intention of the parties. In the absence of evidence of self-dealing or breach of community standards of decency, fairness and reasonableness, the exercise of contractual rights alone will not be considered a breach of the covenant. Scherer, at 653-54 (internal quotes and citations omitted). Although many claims for breach of good faith involve questions of fact making summary judgment inappropriate, summary judgment may be appropriate where, under the facts in the record, the party's actions were in conformity with the clear language of the contract. Scherer, at 654, fn. 2. [¶ 25] Applying these standards, we find no breach of the implied covenant under the facts presented. The contract language provided that the contract was contingent upon agency concurrence. The contract language did not place an affirmative duty upon the JPB to secure agency concurrence. Had the parties intended to impose such a duty upon the JPB, they were required to expressly state that intention in the contract itself. We are not willing to infer that such a duty existed absent clear language in the contract indicating that was the parties' intent. [¶ 26] Moreover, were we to conclude that such a duty was imposed upon the JPB by express terms of the contract, the facts before us suggest that the JPB took reasonable steps to secure the concurrence of the funding agencies. By two separate letters, the JPB presented its reasons for awarding the contract to Whitlock rather than the low bidder. Despite the information provided by the JPB, the funding agencies chose not to concur in the award to the second lowest bidder. We find nothing in the record to support Whitlock's claim that the JPB acted unreasonably.