In the following case Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Limited (2001) 69 NSWLR 558, does the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal to imply a term of good faith and reasonableness support the understanding of the role of the court as stated by the proponents of Classical Contract Theory or is it better supported by 'Neo-Classical' understanding regarding the court's role of 'gap-filling' or use of 'default rules'?