Stonebrook Case

Some principles and ideas of many cases dealing with Common Law and statues are the common idea of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract or no contract and means to agreements and ruling.
The common idea of good faith and fair dealing is normally used when there are technical excuses for a breach of contract or specific wording. This principle may be used in different occasions such as fraud (McClain v Octagon Plaza), question of fact (Shah v Cover-it, Inc), unfair and unjust enrichment (Stainbrook v Low) and occasions such as reciprocal duties (Smith v. City and County of San Francisco).
When the question in common law is weather a contract is valid or voidable, the question of breach of contract comes to play. In different occasions such as oral contracts (Jannusch v Naffziger), fraud (McClain v Octagon Plaza), having a minor sign a contract(Yale Diagnostic Radiology v Estate of Harun Fountain) or simply making change at the bank(Barfield v Commerce Bank N. A.)a contract may be binding, breached, it may not be a contract or may be voided.
One of the most important principles in any common law case is the way a contract is performed and applied. The way agreements and rulings are performed and come to a conclusion. Many times a case may not be able to go to court, a decision in weather arbitration is needed or enforced has a heavy change in the final conclusion to the contract. In many cases, court will need to choose while parts of a contract are arbitrariable or not (NCR Corp v Korala Associates Ltd.) or simply lawful to be enforced(Simpson v MSA of Myrtle Beach