Best efforts: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "{{a|drafting|}}For pompouser types, “best endeavours” {{cite|Rhodia International Holdings Ltd |Huntsmann International|2007|EWHC 292 (Comm)|}} held that “''reasonable''..."
 
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Best reasonable endeavours]]
*[[Best reasonable efforts]]
*[[Worst reasonable endeavours]]
*[[Worst reasonable efforts]]

Revision as of 14:14, 14 November 2022

The JC’s guide to writing nice.™
Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

For pompouser types, “best endeavours” Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v Huntsmann International [2007] EWHC 292 (Comm) held that “reasonable endeavours” requires the person on the Clapham omnibus only endeavour down a single avenue of reasonableness. That having resulted in a dead end, there is no further cause to wander up and down thoroughfares, however reasonable they may in the abstract be, to discharge ones obligation.

A “best endeavours” obligation requires the bus to go down every one of those avenues, and exhaust the lot of them. “All reasonable endeavours” on this scheme, is the same as “best endeavours”. It requires money down in the pursuit of real and active, reasonable, effort.

See also