No. 18-7554

Jack Ferm v. Office of the Attorney General of Nevada

Lower Court: Nevada
Docketed: 2019-01-24
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: attorney-general-misconduct contract-breach contract-damages fair-dealing false-statement gainful-employment good-faith good-faith-and-fair-dealing implied-covenant implied-covenant-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing plea-agreement restitution
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-03-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the court below erroneously held that a false statement by the Attorney General did not breach the plea agreement or the 'Spirit the contract' through the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as applied to Plea Agreements _ | have been narrowly construed ‘only to terms’ stated in the agreement itself. Courts | ' have failed to consider the actual purpose of the covenant, to protect the Spirit of the bargain. Conduct that was never considered during contract negotiations, yet affects | the defendants negotiated benefit. The theory of the covenant begins with the premise, the essence of a contract is twofold (i) the written word, i.e. the literal interpretation, and (ii) the spirit of the contract, those matters that go to the heart of the agreement and protect the contracting party’s intent. The covenants purpose, is ; ‘not to interpret the literal terms, but those actions that protect each party from _. external contract aberrations. actions that work to deprive a party of the benefit of _. > their bargain. In the real world the covenant should be measured not merely by terms . included, but by those acts or conduct that lay outside the bargain and go to the heart ; | of the agreement, its spirit and intent. The Supreme Court should set a standard by . which the covenant applies to plea agreements breached by conduct that was not ; “..:, included in its corporeal presence: The Court is asked to establish a Standard which “> defines the contours of Plea Agreement’s, Spirit. Raising the following questions. ~~. Whether the court below erroneously held, a false statement, that petitioner had a ey been convicted of a felony, placed on the internet by the Attorney General, which : » they knew was untrue, and which impaired petitioner’s ability to become gainfully |, ..; employed in order to make the agreed restitution payments, did not breach the plea “agreement, or the ‘Spirit the contract’ through the implied covenant of good faith 7 ~. and fair dealing. _-"8 Whether upon a breached Plea Agreement by the Attorney General, which has ae or» caused financial loss to a defendant. The defendant has a right to sue the state for ae oie actual contract damages caused by that breach? doe

Docket Entries

2019-03-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.
2019-01-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 25, 2019)

Attorneys

Jack Ferm
Jack Ferm — Petitioner
Jack Ferm — Petitioner