Best endeavours, all reasonable endeavours and reasonable endeavours
A ‘best endeavours’ obligation is the most onerous of the three levels of ‘endeavours’ obligations. In the words of one old case: the term ‘best endeavours’ ‘means what the words say; they do not mean second-best endeavours’. A party should take steps that a prudent, determined and reasonable obligee (i.e. the beneficiary of the obligation), acting in its own interests and desiring to achieve that result, would take. A party that has assumed a ‘best endeavours’ obligation — the obligor — must exhaust all of a number of reasonable courses that could be taken in a given situation to achieve a particular aim.
This is not an absolute obligation, nor is it ‘the next best thing to an absolute obligation or a guarantee’. A ‘best endeavours obligation may require the obligor to incur expenditure’. However, depending on the nature and terms of the contract in question, the obligor may have some regard for its own commercial interests. This obligation does not therefore include actions that would lead to its financial ruin, undermine its commercial standing or goodwill or have no likelihood of being successful. For instance, the obligor may be required to take the risk of success or failure in proceeding to litigate, but only where there is a reasonable prospect of commercial success.
The line between a ‘best endeavours’ obligation and an ‘all reasonable endeavours’ obligation can be a blurred one and it is too sweeping a statement to suggest that an ‘all reasonable endeavours’ obligation is a half-way house between ‘best’ and ‘reasonable’ endeavours. While an ‘all reasonable endeavours’ obligation does not necessarily equate to a ‘best endeavours obligation, in the context of the number of courses of action a party must take, there is some alignment between the two phrases. For instance, it appears that an ‘all reasonable endeavours’ clause ‘requires you to go on using endeavours until the point is reached when all reasonable endeavours have been exhausted’ — which looks very much like a ‘best endeavours’ obligation. However, there may be a distinction between the two concepts in terms of the commercial sacrifice an obligor has to bear…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
Jackson, Denton, Mitchell… anyone involved with civil litigation over the last two years will have heard these names repeatedly and will be aware of their importance to compliance with the new rules.
While a headline glance at the Supreme Court’s judgment in this long-running case might give developers some encouragement a closer look reveals that the issues in play are not quite so straightforward.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.