In 1984, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on a similar case in Horizon Corp. v. Westcor, Inc., 142 Ariz. 129, 688 P.2d 1021 (Application 1984). Westcor had entered into a sales agreement with Horizon, which depended on compliance with a number of conditions, including site plan approval, zoning and financing. The court held that the contract was illusory, for lack of consideration, given that Westcor considered a margin of appreciation in compliance with the conditions whose performance was left to the exclusive and absolute discretion of Westcors. However, the Court of Appeal set aside the Court of Justice and found that Westcor was implicitly required to make an effort to satisfy the conditions in good faith and that Westcor was required to exercise its consent or refusal in good faith. See also A.R. Mack v. Coker, 523 p.2d 1342 (Ariz. App. 1974) (finding that buyers` efforts to obtain financing were a sufficient counterpart for the application of an option agreement); See Steiner v.

Thexton, 2010 WL 960418, *3 (The implicit alliance [of good faith and fair trade] does not explicitly surpass the language of agreements. (1) Acquired property. The first step in the title verification process is to verify the preliminary report to ensure that the property mentioned in the preliminary report is a purchase. This is especially important when the property purchased is a reduction of less than the simple fee. After the first negotiations between a seller and a buyer, when buying or selling a business, the legal formalities begin at the establishment of the sales contract. The buyer appealed this decision to the California Supreme Court, which was inculcated by the Court of Appeals. The Tribunal found that the drawing of lots was in itself an insufficient consideration, since the buyer was not required to take action; However, since the buyer had taken measures (i.e. partially exported), there was sufficient consideration in the form of injury to the buyer (cost) and benefit to the seller (the division of the lot that made part of its goods transferable). The Court also stated that, for the examination to be sufficient, the examination must be explicitly negotiated by the parties at the time of the agreement.

. . . .