Breach Of Good Faith Doesn't Require Malice
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.03.06
The Court of Federal Claims in the unusual factual situation of Agredano v. U.S. (Mar. 27, 2006) took the opportunity to reinforce the growing body of decisional law that a party does not have to show subjective malice or intent to injure by a government employee to be able to recover for breach of good faith and fair dealing duties. In this case, Mexican nationals who bought a car seized by the Customs Service at a forfeiture sale "as is" and were then locked up for a year in Mexico when it was discovered at a traffic checkpoint that the upholstery was stuffed with marijuana stated a valid claim for breach of good faith duties to search the car and make sure it was "legal" before offering it for sale.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.13.26
Massachusetts Trade Secret Preliminary Injunctions: Prove the Harm, Tailor the Relief
A strong trade secret claim is not a substitute for proof of irreparable harm. In Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo, No. SJC-13881 (Mass. Oct. 14, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that likely success on a misappropriation claim does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. The court grounded its ruling in both the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the traditional equitable principles the statute incorporates. It required a case-specific showing that the requested relief would prevent harm that a final judgment could not adequately remedy.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.12.26
SBA Announces Doubling Veteran Contracting Target to 10% for FY 2027, but Questions Remain
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.12.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.11.26
President Trump Nominates Peter Feldman to Serve as CPSC Chairman and Commissioner
