Best endeavours v reasonable endeavours
Many construction industry practitioners will have been confronted with a contract which requires the parties to use 'best' or 'reasonable' endeavours in performing obligations under the contract. This apparently minor difference however presents a real risk to a party if they are unaware of the difference in legal interpretation between the two terms.
Evidently an obligation to use 'best endeavours' implies a higher degree of commitment to perform a particular task when compared to 'reasonable endeavours' but, as is often the case, it is only when a contract dispute arises and Court proceedings follow that the reality of the difference becomes apparent.
- To leave no stone unturned.
- To do what is reasonably to be expected in the circumstances.
- Not to do anything that will jeopardise the commercial interests of the obligor.
Behind these definitions lies an expectation of what might be done to ensure that these obligations are met.
In the case of best endeavours it may be the case that a party has to commit extra resources or spend additional funds in order to meet the obligation, even to the extent that it is commercially damaging to the party concerned. Where the obligation is reasonable it is unlikely that this degree of obligation would be applied by the Courts.
For the purposes of the layman, however, one can point to certain more simple facts:
- Reasonable endeavours will be less onerous than best endeavours.
- If a contract sets out specific steps to be taken as part of a reasonable obligation, ensure that these steps are indeed carried out. This is regardless of commercial considerations.
This article was created by: --Martinc 14:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
- Duty of care.
- Duty to warn.
- Fitness for purpose.
- Good faith.
- Good faith – good grief.
- Reasonable skill and care.
Featured articles and news
High quality and high density homes - is it what we need or is it storing up trouble?
Government announces its intention to strengthen planning rules to protect music venues and neighbours.
National Audit Office reports that there is little evidence that PFI offers better value than other forms of contracting.
What is liquidation and how does it apply to contractors in the construction industry?
Scrutiny is placed on Carillion's controversial 2013 decision to extend subcontractor payment terms to 120 days.
RSHP unveil their involvement in a boundary crossing which will provide a new entry point into Hong Kong.
With PFI currently under the spotlight due to Carillion, this introductory article explains what they are.
Estimates suggest that up to 30,000 small firms could be at risk of non-payment as a result of Carillion's collapse.
Sir Oliver Letwin to lead an independent review into the delays in the delivery of housing.
As Carillion collapses, read our article explaining insolvency in the construction industry.
43,000 jobs at risk as Carillion declares insolvency.