Regardless of the level of convergence happening, whether it is desirable is another matter. The prevalent opinion is that convergence is a sought after circumstance, to the extent that deliberate attempts at harmonisation have taken place, as this helps to expedite international trade and allows the EU to function as a united bloc, ensuring all citizens are protected by the same standards.
It is not universally viewed as a positive trait however; Teubner believes that attempts to integrate legal principles transferred from another jurisdiction will be unsuccessful both legally and socially as it causes new divisions to appear. This is interesting with regard to current events as it was demonstrated earlier that good faith does not appear to have achieved any widely supported legal integration and the recent referendum in the UK implies that the requirement to accept new laws has become an such irritant at a societal level that it is no longer tolerable.
This seems to lend support to the idea that convergence of legal rules may not be desirable, but it is also possible that convergence is only desirable in particular types of law; namely those that are considered homogenous (facilitative law – which furnishes society with the apparatus to run smoothly) rather than that which is considered heterogenous (interventionist law – which would include the influence good faith has on contract law, as it shields parties that are considered to be weaker).
It is possible then that convergence is desirable but not attainable in all areas of law, as convergence in interventionist areas of law may be undesirable as national preferences for specific levels of legal protection exist both as a result of the unique development of that countries legal system and to address its particular needs, and this cultural context is not transplantable. Conclusion
In conclusion it does not appear that the concept of good faith is a particularly strong basis for convergence between English law and other jurisdictions, although there is some evidence that the ideals of good faith have long existed in English contract law as a piecemeal solution to the harshness of common law, and attempts to transplant it directly from the continent have not been successful.
This is not too surprising, and is in line LeGrand’s idea that “rules must encode experience”, as foisting what is essentially a civil law tradition onto a common law country fails to take into account the historical development and reactionary nature of law that has left the two irreconcilably different.
Primary Sources Case Law Beswick v Beswick  AC 58 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and Parking Eye Limited v Beavis  UKSC 67 p32
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House  KB 130 HC CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company  EWHC 1535 (Ch) Lloyds Bank v Bundy  QB 326 EWCA Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd  EWCA Civ 200 Peachy v. The Duke of Somerset, 1 Str. Rep. 446 (1721) Seager Limited v Copydex Limited  2 All ER 415 TSG Building Services plc v South Anglia Housing Limited  EWHC 1151
Walford v Miles  1 All ER 453, p 460 Yam Seng PTE Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd  EWHC 111 (QB) p124 and p153 Legislation Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Section 5 (1) International Legislation Code Civil Francais- Article 1134 and 1135 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 1993 Article 3(1) United States Uniform Commercial Code 2011 Section 1-201(20)