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 | 5 min read | 10.22.25
Sixth Circuit Reaffirms Privilege Protections During Internal Investigations
On October 3, 2025, the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed that the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine protections apply to materials created during attorney-led internal investigations. In re FirstEnergy Corp., No. 24-3654 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2025).
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.21.25
Pivot Point for 340B: HRSA Rebate Model Pilot Program Approaches Launch
Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.20.25
What’s new for Belgian Construction Contracts under the New Book 7 of the Civil Code
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.17.25
California Enacts New Requirements and Restrictions for Health Care Transactions
