This covenant requires someone who has discretion regarding how a contract is performed to do so in good faith relative to the shared intent of the parties regarding the objective of the contract. (law.stackexchange.com)
But Milazzo wrote, «It is obvious to this Court that there was no mutual intent of the parties to guarantee plaintiffs funding,» calling the testimony «unequivocal.» (nola.com)
Short answer: usually those meta terms would count as binding parts of the contract but if it said «attached is a 3 page addendum with 15 terms» the question would be if the the real intent of the parties was to refer to the actual addendum provided to the court, and if it was, the actual addendum would be given full effect regardless of how many terms it actually had. (law.stackexchange.com)