‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ LESS STRINGENT THAN ‘BEST ENDEAVOURS’

Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v Huntsman International LLC [2007] EWHC 282 (Comm), 21 February 2007

In Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v. Huntsman International LLC [2007] EWHC 282 (Comm), 21 February 2007, Mr Julian Flaux QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered the meaning of the words ‘reasonable endeavours’ and concluded that it imposed a less onerous obligation on the party subject to the obligation than an obligation to use ‘best endeavours’. An obligation to use reasonable endeavours requires a party to take one of a range of possible reasonable courses of action, whereas an obligation to use ‘best endeavours’ requires a party to go further and to pursue all reasonable alternatives. In this sense there may not be a significant difference between an obligation to use ‘best endeavours’ and an obligation to use ‘all reasonable endeavours’.