Who is liable for the wrongdoing which took place towards me.

The Defendant's team

Liability
The only issue the defendant's team can muster is who is liable for the wrongdoing which took place.

Rent
OK, Mr. Sevelis didn't pay rent so out he goes. But WHY wasn't the rent paid?  Did Ms. Choban have any connection in stopping rental payments until December 31, 2011 by her own actions? Did Ms. Choban know that repercussions would happen by stating false, erroneous, and libelous information?

Contract
Though not explicit in an express contract, an implied contract is a legally enforceable agreement that arises from conduct, from assumed intentions, from some relationship among the immediate parties, or from the application of the legal principle of equity.

Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract. A lawsuit (or a cause of action) based upon the breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when he or she uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform their contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances and understandings between the parties.

Contents  [hide]  1 History 2 Contemporary usage 3 References 4 External links

[edit] History

In U.S. law, the legal concept of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arose in the mid-19th century because contemporary legal interpretations of “the express contract language, interpreted strictly, appeared to grant unbridled discretion to one of the parties”.^[1] In 1933, in the case of Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company et al. 263 N.Y. 79; 188 N.E. 163; 1933 N.Y., the New York Court of Appeals said:

In every contract there is an implied covenant 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, which means that in every contract there exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Furthermore, the covenant was discussed in the First Restatement of Contracts by the American Law Institute, but before adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code in the 1950s, when the common law of most states did not recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracts.^[1]

[edit] Contemporary usage

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is especially important in U.S. law. It was incorporated into the Uniform Commercial Code (as part of Section 1-304), and was codified by the American Law Institute as Section 205 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.^[1]
Most U.S. jurisdictions view the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing solely as a variant of breach of contract, in which the implied covenant is merely a "gap-filler" that provides yet another contractual term, and breach thereof simply gives rise to ordinary contractual damages. Of course, this is not the most ideal rule for plaintiffs, since consequential damages for breach of contract are subject to certain limitations (see Hadley v. Baxendale).
In certain jurisdictions, breach of the implied covenant can also give rise to a tort action, e.g. A.C. Shaw Construction v. Washoe County, 105 Nevada 913, 915, 784 P.2d 9, 10 (1989).^[2] This rule is most prevalent in insurance law, where the insurer's breach of the implied covenant may give rise to a tort action known as insurance bad faith. The advantage of tort liability is that it supports broader compensatory damages as well as the possibility of punitive damages.
Some plaintiffs have attempted to persuade courts to extend tort liability for breach of the implied covenant from insurers to other powerful defendants like employers and banks. However, most U.S. courts have followed the example of certain landmark decisions from California courts, which rejected such tort liability against employers in 1988^[3] and against banks in 1989.^[4]

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b c} Dubroff H. (2006). The Implied Covenant of Good Faith in Contract Interpretation and Gap-filling: Reviling a Revered Relic. St. John’s Law Review. Free full-text.
2. ^ See A.C. Shaw Construction v. Washoe County, 105 Nev. 913, 915, 784 P.2d 9, 10 (1989).
3. ^ Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654, 665 (1988).
4. ^ Price v. Wells Fargo Bank, 213 Cal. App. 3d 465 (1989).

[edit] External links

• Legal dictionary definition
• Another dictionary definition
• Article about a legal action utilizing the covenant
• Discussion of the covenant
• Law firm publications on the covenant

Civil Law Defenses

See also: Category:Equitable defenses

In common law, a defendant may raise any of the numerous defenses to limit or avoid liability. These include:

• Lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction of the court, such as diplomatic immunity.
• Failure to state a cause of action or other insufficiencies of pleading.
• Any of the affirmative defenses.
• Defenses conferred by statute - such as a statute of limitations or the statute of frauds.
• Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - the action against the defendant arises from an illegality.
• Volenti non fit injuria - consent by the victim or plaintiff.

In addition to defenses against prosecution and liability, a defendant may also raise a defense of justification - such as self-defense and defense of others or defense of property