Commercial Law - Contract Construction - 'Reasonable' & 'Best' Endeavours

The recent case of Rhodia International Holdingscontract transferred from one company to the
Limited and Rhodia UK Limited v Huntsmanother. It was ruled that Huntsman International
International LLC [2007], provides new guidancehad breached the sale agreement by not using its
on a long-disputed area of contract law. Accordingreasonable endeavours to provide a guarantee for
to the judgment of the High Court, a duty toa power contract. Julian Flaux QC, sitting as a
exercise 'reasonable endeavours' requires lessdeputy High Court Judge in the case said:
than 'best endeavours' but can still demand a"An obligation to use reasonable endeavours to
party to act against its own commercial interests,achieve the aim probably only requires a party to
although the case does not resolve all thetake one reasonable course, not all of them,
uncertainty surrounding the difference betweenwhereas an obligation to use best endeavours
'reasonable' and 'best' endeavours.probably requires a party to take all the
The case confirms that 'reasonable endeavours' isreasonable courses he can. In that context, it
a less stringent obligation than 'best endeavours' -may well be that an obligation to use all
a concept which is commonly assumed. The casereasonable endeavours equates with using best
also confirms that a 'reasonable endeavours'endeavours..."
obligation may be discharged by exhausting justThe ruling in the case made it clear that the
one of a number of possible solutions, whereas aterms of the sale contract were binding, even if
'best endeavours' obligation requires all avenues toits terms no longer suited one of the parties. The
be explored.companies must abide by their contractual
Huntsman International LLC ("Huntsman") hadobligation to make a reasonable endeavour even if
agreed to buy Rhodia International Holdingsit is against their company interests.
Limited and Rhodia UK Limited ("Rhodia"), aHowever, there are other authorities which
chemicals company. As part of the sale andsuggest a slightly different viewpoint. In the
purchase agreement both parties were to useabsence of a specific course of action assumed
reasonable endeavours to ensure that all supplierby a party in the context of a reasonable or best
contracts passed from Rhodia to Huntsman,endeavours obligation, neither obligation is likely to
including one with a power company called Cogen.require a party to sacrifice it own commercial
However, Cogen refused to accept the transferinterests. It appears from the other authorities -
of the contract without a guarantee fromwhich were not discussed in this case - that
Huntsman's parent company. The argument over'reasonable endeavours' may not even require the
what was meant by reasonable endeavoursparty giving such an obligation to act to its own
focussed on Huntsman's refusal to provide thatdisadvantage. This would suggest that relatively
guarantee. That refusal therefore affected thelittle effort is required to comply with a
transfer of the contract with Cogen for the'reasonable endeavours' obligation.
supply of power.As far as the drafting of contracts is concerned,
Huntsman paid for the power from the date ofthe best way to achieve certainty would be to
its purchase of Rhodia in 2001 until 2004.specify the actions a party must take in using its
However, in 2004 Huntsman told Rhodia that it'best' or 'reasonable' endeavours wherever
was pulling out of the location and thatpossible. The relevant party will then be bound to
responsibility for the power contract remainedtake those actions in any event and the question
with Rhodia until the contract expired in 2009.of whether those actions are contrary to that
Huntsman submitted the reason for this beingparty's commercial interests will not arise.
that the contract for the supply of power had© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note
not been transferred. Cogen claimed thatdoes not provide a comprehensive or complete
£14.8m worth of power and services wasstatement of the law relating to the issues
owed, and the case concerned Huntsman anddiscussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is
Rhodia arguing over who owed Cogen thatintended only to highlight general issues. Specialist
amount.legal advice should always be sought in relation to
The case was eventually decided on whatparticular circumstances.
constituted 'reasonable endeavours' to ensure the