Cited by

To prevail on his good faith claim, Weber must prove appellees acted in a way inconsistent with, or adverse to, Weber’s “reasonably expected benefit of the bargain.” ¶ 14 (App. 2002) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Tr.

A party breaches this covenant by “exercising express discretion in a way inconsistent with a party’s reasonable expectations and by acting in ways not expressly excluded by the contract’s terms but which nevertheless bear adversely on the party’s reasonably expected benefits of the bargain.” ¶ 14 (App. 2002).

–24, ¶ 14 (App. 2002) (the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot contradict an express term of the contract).

Generally, “an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot directly contradict an express contract term.” ¶ 14 (App. 2002).

¶34 The covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract, ¶ 13 (App. 2002), and prevents a party to a contract from doing “anything that will injure the rights or interests” of the other party.

A party breaches this covenant by acting in a way inconsistent with, or adverse to, the other “party’s reasonably expected benefits of the bargain.” ¶ 14 (App. 2002) (emphasis added).

¶22 A party may breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing “even if the express terms [of the agreement] speak to a ‘related subject.’” ¶ 17 (App. 2002).

breaches the covenant 'by exercising express discretion in a way inconsistent with a party's reasonable expectations and by acting in ways not expressly excluded by the contract's terms but which nevertheless bear adversely on the party's reasonably expected benefits of the bargain.'" Keg Restaurants Arizona, ¶ 45 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2002)).

¶ 20 (App. 2002) (issues which should have been raised in the first appeal may not be raised nor considered by appellate court in a subsequent appeal).

–24, ¶ 14 2 The deed of trust filed by U.S. Bank was dated 2013; however, the operative contract for the events giving rise to the Second Amended Complaint was actually a 2009 deed of trust.

s court has previously stated, “a party can breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing both by exercising express discretion in a way inconsistent with a party’s reasonable expectations and by acting in ways not expressly excluded by the contract’s terms but which nevertheless bear adversely on the party’s reasonably expected benefits of the bargain.” ¶ 14 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).

¶ 22, (failing to raise an issue in first appeal waives it as to the second appeal).

A party breaches the covenant “by exercising express discretion in a way inconsistent with a party’s reasonable expectations and by acting in ways not expressly excluded by the contract’s terms but which nevertheless bear adversely on the party’s reasonably expected benefits of the bargain.” , 424 ¶ 14

Corp., ¶ 14, (holding that implied covenant can be breached “both by exercising express discretion in a way inconsistent with a party’s reasonable expectations and by acting in ways not expressly excluded by the contract’s terms but which nevertheless bear adversely on the party’s reasonabl

Wells Fargo, 201 Ariz. at 490, ¶ 59; ¶ 17 (App. 2002).

¶ 20 , ("[Ijssues that ‘should have been raised on the first appeal may not be presented to nor considered by this court on the second appeal.’ ”) (quoting Hurst v. Hurst, 1 Ariz.App.

The obligation of good faith and fair dealing preserves “ ‘the spirit of the bargain rather than the letter’ and guarantees the protection of the parties’ reasonable expectations.” Bike Fashion Corp. *462 v. Kramer, , quoting 3A Arthur Linton Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 654A at 105 (Lawrence A. Cunningham & Arthur J. Jacobson eds., Supp.1999).