A case note on the following case. Aiton v Transfield [1999] NSWSC
996 ( 1 October, 1999)

1. A summary of the facts of the case.
2. A summary of the progress of the case. So,if the matter is the
decision of an Appeal Court, reference should be made to the decision
of the lower court.
3. A summary of the arguments put by both the plaintiff and the
defendant.
4. (a) A summary of the judgment. If there is more than 1 judge, then
a summary of each judge's reasons.
   (b) Was there any significant obiter? NOTE. Meaning of the word
obiter is "an incidental and collateral opinion uttered by a judge."
5. How the decision of the case affects contract law; Is good faith a
concept that is part of Australian law, either expressly or as an
implied term in the negotiation or performance of contracts? If
so,what does it mean - i.e., what is the content of good faith in
Australia?
6. Is the case is a strong authority? Does it set any new precedent in
contract law and the importance of the case to good faith in contract
law.

Further notes that will help in the answering of the question.

* When ever reference is made directly from the case - can you please
write the paragraph number from where the quotation is taken. 
* Aiton is an Australian case and can be found @ <http://www.austlii.edu.au>.
* A GOOD ANSWER = a GOOD TIP. GOOD LUCK :-)

---

Clarification of Question by cati-ga on 26 Mar 2004 22:28 PST

Where it asks for a summary of the cases there is only one judge and
that is - Einstein J. The case is reagarding good faith when entering
into a contract. Perhaps the LBC Databbase ALMD or Australian Digest,
may contain on an online summary of the judgement. Note, that the case
is a supreme court of NSW case.

---

Clarification of Question by cati-ga on 26 Mar 2004 22:31 PST

Assistance on this matter would be greatly appriciated!! Thanks!!
Remember, a good tip will be avaliable

---

Clarification of Question by cati-ga on 29 Mar 2004 00:25 PST

Try the following websites

Lexisnexis.com.au or (lexis.com)
Lawbook.Co.com.au

Some research that I came across

T sought to have court proceedings stayed until the procedures set out
in the agreement to negotiate disputes in good faith had been
followed. The dispute resolution clause in the contract provided for a
variety of dispute resolution methods prior to litigation. The first
stage was negotiation followed by mediation. A claimed the requirement
of "good faith" was too imprecise to create an enforceable obligation.

The judge Einstein J, said that negotiation of mediation in good faith
did not requite the party to act on behalf of or in the interest of
teh other party. Nor did it prevent th eparty from acting witth regard
to his or her self-interest. Finially, it was concluded that while a
party seeking urgent relief, teh court was unlikley to frustrate the
party's efforts bt sheltering behind a dispute resolution process. to
allow for the enforceablilty of a dispute resolution slause it is
important for parties to be able to determine that teh procedure has
concluded.

Held: (1) Provided that no stage of the dispute resolution mechanism
is itself an "agreement to agree" and therefore void for uncertainty,
an agreement to attempt to negotiate a dispute may itself constitute a
stage in the process. (2) The failure of the dispute resolution clause
to set out how the mediator's costs should be apportioned made the
mediation clause unenforceable. The mediation clause could not be
severed from the negotiation clause either. They were intended to be
treated as two parts in a procedure that constituted the dispute
resolution process. Hence the agreement to negotiate was
unenforceable. (3)  Consideration of the elements of the obligation to
negotiate in "good faith". These include, an undertaking to be subject
to the process; to have an open mind by being willing to consider
options put forward to resolve the dispute or be willing to consider
putting forward ones own options. However, a party is not obliged to
act for, or on behalf of, or in the interests of, the other party, nor
to act otherwise than by having regard to one's own self-interest.

Aiton Australia Pty Ltd v Transfield Pty Ltd   (1999) 153 FLR 236;
[1999] NSWSC 996, NSW Sup Ct, Einstein J.