Encountering the phrases, "best efforts",
"reasonable efforts" and "commercially reasonable
efforts" in commercial contracts sans definition leaves enough
latitude for interpretation to cause uncertainty.
Nevertheless, a considerable amount of jurisprudence does provide
A hierarchy has been accepted whereby "best efforts"
imposes the most onerous requirement in comparison to
"reasonable efforts" or "commercial reasonable
efforts". As between the latter two phrases, the courts have
yet to clearly delineate the difference, if any.
In Atmospheric Diving Systems Inc. v International Hard
Suits Inc., the BC Supreme Court summarizes existing case law
to describe "best efforts" as follows:
Taking, in good faith, all reasonable steps to achieve the
objective, carrying the process to its logical conclusion and
leaving no stone unturned... Doing everything known to be usual,
necessary and proper for ensuring the success of the endeavour.
The court cautioned that each analysis is a fact-based one, and
that there is no absolute duty to achieve the contractual
objective. Rather, the analysis will require an examination of
whether the individual was acting in good faith with a true attempt
at fulfilling the obligation. In sum, there is a high expectation
of performance balanced by a standard of reasonableness.
The term "reasonable" has been judicially interpreted
to mean the taking of all reasonable and measured steps to achieve
an objective in the circumstances. Reasonableness is defined more
by what it does not require, rather than by what it does require,
in the given circumstances. The standard of reasonableness does not
require an individual to expend efforts to the point of undue
The distinction, if there is one, is unclear between the
phrases, "reasonable efforts" and "commercially
reasonable efforts". Not yet judicially determined, it can be
contended that both phrases, in a commercial context, reference the
same standard of effort. While it may be suggested that
"commercially reasonable efforts" means pursuing an
objective until it becomes economically unreasonable for
an individual to continue, it is arguable that the concept of
"reasonable efforts" would yield substantively the same
interpretation of effort in a commercial context.
In light of this open-to-interpretation and contextualized
understanding of the differences between "best efforts",
"reasonable efforts" and "commercially reasonable
efforts", parties to a commercial contract would be prudent to
clearly define the specific, tangible actions that must be taken in
order to fulfill a particular "efforts" standard.
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide
the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions
with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers
based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada,
Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all
the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy;
infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and
innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global
business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to
provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of
our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia,
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South
Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright &
Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members
('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose
Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein
helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright
members but does not itself provide legal services to
The content of this article is intended to provide a
general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be
sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Ontario Securities Commission v. Tiffin, the Ontario Court of Justice clarified the limits of the definition of "securities" under s.1(1) of the Securities Act, as it relates to promissory notes. The defendant in the case was charged with trading in securities without being registered and while prohibited, and without filing a prospectus.
The OSC has issued a press release advising stakeholders that Ontario securities law may apply to any use of distributed ledger technologies, such as blockchain, as part of financial products or service offerings.
The use of electronic signatures is becoming increasingly commonplace in commercial transactions, as individuals and businesses capitalize on the administrative efficiency afforded by today’s digital world.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).