In Parker v. Columbia Bank, 91 Md. App. 346, 604 A.2d 521 (1992), the Parkers approached Columbia Bank to finance the purchase of a lot and the construction of a new home. Id. at 352. Subsequently, "the Parkers and Columbia entered into a written construction loan agreement in the amount of $529,000 to cover the Parkers' purchase of the land and the construction loan." Id. at 355. "In administering the loan, Columbia did not adhere to the draw schedule set forth in the Parkers' construction contract with the construction company." Id. at 355. The Parkers alleged that Columbia represented that "construction draws would only be issued after Columbia had obtained inspections to insure that work had been done in accordance with the draw schedule, while in fact Columbia intended to advance funds, if requested by the construction company, ahead of the draw schedule and regardless of inspections." Id. at 354. The Parkers asserted that Columbia Bank breached the express terms of their loan agreement and an implied duty of good faith "by disbursing draws when the loan was out of balance." Id. at 365. The Court explained: The loan agreement does not prohibit Columbia from disbursing draws if the loan is out of balance; it merely provides that Columbia is not obligated to disburse draws when the loan is out of balance. By its terms, the relevant provision of the loan agreement is for Columbia's protection, not the Parkers'. Columbia was not contractually obligated to make sure that the Parkers' loan remained in balance. Rather, it was the Parkers who were obligated to maintain the loan in balance. Indeed, to the extent that the loan became out of balance, the Parkers were expressly obligated, under Section 8.1 of the loan agreement, to invest additional funds in the project to rectify the problem. Id.