Key Points:
"Reasonable endeavours" clauses do not require
a party to act in conflict of its own business interests, and will
be interpreted in the light of any express
constraints.
"Reasonable endeavours" and "best
endeavours" clauses have long been used in commercial
contracts, including construction contracts, to qualify strict
obligations, generally where performance of the obligation may
conflict with the obligor's commercial and business interests
depending on changing circumstances.
Since the 1980s, Australian law has treated "reasonable
endeavours" in the same way as "best endeavours".
The 1984 case, Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical
Corporation, remains a principal authority for the interpretation
of such clauses; it says that "an obligation to use "best
endeavours" does not require the person who undertakes the
obligation to go beyond the bounds of reason; he is required to do
all he reasonably can in the circumstances to achieve
