What IS Efficiency? In real commerce, there are generally 2 main, opposing objectives. If you are a business person, you are either efficient, cutting costs to save, since you are paying for it, OR you stretch time, and add whatever you can get away with, in order to charge more for whatever services you are supplying a client.
But when it comes to government, efficiency is NOT a forefront issue. The psyche functions completely differently. There are no entrepreneurs working for the government. They are jobs, usually 8 hour shifts, where the needs require a comfortable fulfillment of prerequisites set by the title you carry. And as long as you make no waves, you can grow old and retire with a clear conscience.
In my endeavours to file my Application with the Registry Office in Victoria, I have encountered hurdles. My materials were returned several times. I had not fulfilled required compliances and was informed so. I have no doubt all discrepancies were mine alone to overcome. With my blinkers on, driven to get it RIGHT (or at least accepted by those who function within the system) I today sent my 4th Registered mailing to the Registry Offices in Victoria.
On filing my Application I had omitted to indicate a specific date for my Trial. I had NO idea this was either a prerequisite, or a liberty allowed the Plaintiff. Previously, I remember discussing this with an individual in charge of scheduling available dates, then choosing one to be confirmed. But to stipulate a date of choice?
To remedy this discrepancy I was informed by phone, by a very pleasant person, I needed to send in a REQUISITION indicating a day for Trial, and that it would be a SUMMARY TRIAL + the fact it was to be a maximum 2 hour session in front of a JUDGE. 3 copies of same, with a self-addressed stamped envelope would return me 2 copies, so that I could then sent one to my 'other' party.
Also some additional crucial detail to sent the 'other party' all materials some 8 business days before the requested Trial date + have all docs in to the Registry some 2 days prior to the Trial date.
A lot of detailed crucial information gleaned faster than any government literature I remember.
===================================================================
The following is a re-posting of part of an older entree. I will be curious to see how this will end.
THE IMPLIED TERM OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
(The Canadian Bar Review)
1) “Predicting when good faith obligations are owed in the context of contractual performance.
2)...by advocating for express recognition of a common law rule that would mandate good faith as the governing, default standard out of which parties must expressly contract.”
3) “Alleging breach of terms going to good faith and fair dealing is an increasingly common feature of modern pleadings. The doing so brings simplicity and clarity. ...it addresses inherent inadequacies in rights-conferring language.”
4) “Rights are not absolute - they are tempered by responsibility and are not to be abused.”
5) “The role of good faith has traditionally been understood in relation to three distinct areas: contractual negotiations; contractual performance or execution; and contractual enforcement.”
“While there are judicial indications that good faith obligations may, on an exceptional basis, be owed in contractual negotiations and that good faith obligations can be owed in the context of enforcement, it is contractual performance litigation that has captured center stage.”
6) “The purpose of this article is to assist practitioners in predicting when good faith obligations are owed in the context of contractual performance....[..] ... by relying on patterns in the jurisprudence, I hope to provide a general sense of when members of the judiciary tend to identify the good faith obligation as being present and potentially breached.”
LOCATING GOOD FAITH
The Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace v. United Grain Growers
acknowledged that “[t]he obligation of good faith and fair dealing is incapable of precise definition,”7but that in an employment contract, this requires employers to be “candid, reasonable, honest and forthright with their employees” and to “refrain from engaging in conduct that is unfair or is in bad faith by being, for example, untruthful, misleading or unduly
insensitive.” In an insurance context, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Fidleradopted the definition given by O’Connor J.A. in 702535 Ontario Inc. v. Lloyd’s London Non- Marine Underwriters:
“The duty of good faith also requires an insurer to deal with its insured’s claim fairly.
The duty to act fairly applies both to the manner in which the insurer investigates and assesses the claim and to the decision whether or not to pay the claim. In making a decision whether to refuse payment of a claim from its insured, an insurer must assess the merits of the claim in a balanced and reasonable manner. It must not deny coverage or delay payment in order to take advantage of the insured’s economic vulnerability or to gain bargaining leverage in negotiating a settlement. Adecision byan insurer to refuse payment should be based on a reasonable interpretation of its obligations under the policy. This duty of fairness, however, does not require that an insurer necessarily be correct in making a decision to dispute its obligation to pay a claim. Mere denial of a claim that ultimately succeeds is not, in itself, an act of bad faith.”
“The law requires that parties to a contract exercise their rights under that agreement, honestly, fairly and in good faith. This standard is breached when a party acts in a bad faith manner in the performance of its rights and obligations under the contract. “Good faith” conduct is the guide to the manner in which the parties should pursue their mutual contractual objectives. Such conduct is breached when a party acts in “bad faith” - a conduct that is contrary to community standards of honesty, reasonableness or fairness.”
________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment