Good Faith and Compliance with a Draconian Clause in the Contract
In a particular lease, it was agreed that the tenant would leave the automatic irrigation system open 24 hours a day, after the first water bill arrived the tenant realized that this was a huge and unreasonable financial expense. In another contract it was agreed that the rent includes the electricity payments, later it became clear to the landlord that the tenant used to turn on the air conditioner in the summer and not turn it off until winter came.
Is there in the tenant’s conduct a lack of good faith?
In a matter such as this, it has been ruled that the very use of a contractual right does not constitute a lack of good faith.
The acid test is whether a party to the lease has committed an act or acted in a way that is due to a lack of good faith (trickery, failure, or in a similar manner otherwise).
But the insistence on an express right agreed between the parties in the lease, and what also when it comes to a right that is not hidden between the laws or an artificial interpretation of one word or another in the contract, is not in itself an act of bad faith.
The requirement to fulfill an explicit obligation, which the parties agreed on … cannot in itself be considered a lack of good faith only because the requirement to fulfill the obligation causes damage to the other party.