be paid for the hours authorized in the service plan pursuant to the CARE process. DSHS was the party responsible for determining the hours that would be authorized because it designed the CARE process that produced that determination. When DSHS exercised discretion to create the systems that produced the service plans and reduce the hours those plans authorized for live-in providers, its actions were governed by an implied covenant of good faith, and the jury found that DSHS violated that covenant. ¶27 In light of the jury’s finding that DSHS breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing as to a specific term in the contract, DSHS’s reliance on cases where the duty of good faith did not apply because there was no contract term is misplaced. See, e.g., Badgett, 116 Wn.2d at 570-72 (<HOLDING>); Yousoofian, 84 Wn. App. at 762-63 (holding
holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith holding that parties to contract have an implied obligation to put forth a good faith effort to fulfill the conditions of the contract holding that plaintiffs could not relitigate their claim that they were entitled to vsf benefits and that while plaintiffs could have raised additional claims in one or more of the foregoing actions they opted not to do so and they are barred by res judicata from doing so now holding that while trial courts are encouraged to state all findings in their written orders they are not required to do so as long as the basis for their decisions is clear from the record and thus susceptible to review holding that while the parties may choose to renegotiate their agreement they are under no good faith obligation to do so