Is it just me that has found the constant haggling over which of the standard – “reasonable” or “best” endeavours - we should use in contractual obligations tedious and unfathomable!

 

Now that I’ve read ‘The Fallacy of the “Best Efforts” Standard’ article by Shawn Helms in the June edition of Les Novelles, I suspect not.

 

But I did have a solicitor tell me in fairly certain terms recently, that if I insisted on asking for the removal of “best endeavours” from an agreement, that he would walk away! Despite the fact that the deal was business-critical to his client.

 

I’ve always suspected that this routine was a bit pointless – particularly as not one solicitor I have asked so far has been able to give me a definitive answer or anything that approxiated  such. And if you’ve been trained, like me, that this should almost be an automatic reaction, it now seems we have been wasting time. 

 

So whilst I did wean myself off this habit some time back in favour of “can we not just be explicit about exactly what it is you want from us”, I still find others that insist on engaging in the ritual.

 

So it was with real interest that I read the article.

 

Now all I want to know is this article – base primarily on decisions in the US, applicable to English jurisdiction?

 

Can we despense with nonsense, or have I missed something important? Any takers amongst you lawyers?