Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Uptown Heights Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Seafirst Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 20, 1994No. 9203-02042; CA A75880Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiggs, J.

I agree with the majority’s reasoning and conclusion that it was error for the trial court to grant the motions to dismiss the interference with contractual and business relationship claims. However, I would hold that the contractual and tortious good faith and fair dealing claims were improperly dismissed, and I dissent from the part of the majority opinion that affirms those rulings.

For its conclusion that the duty of good faith and fair dealing does not apply to a lender’s right to invoke a contractual default remedy, the majority opinion relies on two opinions which expressly declined to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sheets v. KnightOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Best v. United States National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State Ex Rel. Roberts v. Public Finance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Farrimond v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. Johnson v. School District No. 12Oregon Supreme Court · 1957

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API