“ Bad faith ” is a term deeply rooted in the legal lexicon, signifying the intent to deceive or act dishonestly during dealings or negotiations. Within the scope of settlement negotiations, bad faith suggests that one party isn’t genuinely striving for a just and reasonable agreement.

In a new study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, researchers Edy Glozman (Columbia Law School), Netta Barak-Corren (Harvard Law School), and Ilan Yaniv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) take a closer look bargaining in bad faith, at what they term “false negotiations”—those times when a party engages in a negotiation process with no desire to reach agreement (or with no intention of implementing any agreement reached).

In negotiations, a bad faith argument is made without genuine intention to come to an agreement but with an ulterior motive. Proof that a party was carrying on negotiations with an ulterior motive can help sustain a claim for bad faith. A bad faith argument is one made to further a frivolous cause or to disguise the dishonest end of a negotiation

In legal terms, "bad faith" refers to a situation where one party intentionally deceives or acts dishonestly towards another party, typically during negotiations or contractual obligations. This can include lying, withholding important information, or making promises with no intention of keeping them.

False negotiators believe they have better alternatives to any offer you could make, yet they are motivated to try to sustain or improve their BATNA, or best alternative to a negotiated agreement, by negotiating with you. They might hope to use an offer from you to get a better deal elsewhere or to drive up the price in a bidding war, for example.