Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW October Newsletter: Are "Efforts" Provisions in Contracts Worth the Effort?

OK, class (as in budding students of contracts and astute readers). Launch your word processing or Adobe Acrobat Reader software and open one of your longer business contracts. Pull up the text "find" feature and search for the following three contractual phrases:
  • best efforts 
  • commercially reasonable efforts 
  • reasonable efforts 
Do you have any hits? Regardless, have you ever wondered what these phrases mean? Whether you are on the receiving or giving end of these "efforts" provisions, you should know what you're in for! 

The short answer is not a lot. But keep reading

Many contracting-drafting lawyers are enamored by these phrases. If their client is on the giving end of a contractual duty, they use "commercially reasonable efforts" to perform that duty. But if their client is on the receiving end of a contractual duty, they will argue for a supposedly higher performance standard: "best efforts." But in the words of the infamous Captain Hook, here's where the canker gnaws. According to John R. Trentacosta, author of Michigan Contract Law:

Different states have different judicial interpretations of what the standard of diligence should be for each of these various clauses...Adding to the uncertainty, Michigan's higher courts do not provide any guidance on interpreting "effort" terms. This creates ambiguity and uncertainty in contract interpretation...

Kenneth Adams, the author of the respected A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting (now in its fourth edition), discusses the supposed differences between the various efforts clauses. He notes that only two courts have suggested that one can distinguish between "best" efforts and "reasonable" efforts...and in neither case does the court provide a coherent rationale for its position. And he further states that there's no basis for saying that adding "commercially" to "reasonable efforts" affects its meaning. Ken then goes on to suggest using only a "reasonable efforts" clause with the following recommended core definition:

"Reasonable Efforts" means, regarding conduct by a party, the efforts that a reasonable person in the position of that party would use to engage in that conduct competently and promptly.

But the problem remains that any efforts clause, however defined, is still ambiguous. In the above definition, what is a reasonable person? What is competently and promptly? I believe that the best solution is to avoid "efforts" clauses and use objective benchmarking language instead.

Consider the following provisions from the world of information technology contracting where Acme is providing cloud-based data processing services ("Services") to the Customer:
  1. Acme shall exercise reasonable efforts to provide the Services 7x24, 365 days per year. 
  2. Acme shall provide the Services 99.9% of the time during the term of this agreement according to the Service Level Agreement attached as Exhibit A. 
Service level agreements (SLAs) are part and parcel of cloud computing (and other) information technology contracts and are further explained here. SLAs provide an objective network uptime benchmark that must be maintained (or service credits are triggered) rather than the nebulous "reasonable efforts" obligation described in the first example. (Aside to IT vendors and customers, have you reviewed your SLAs recently? And for IT customers, have you considered the consequences of your vendor's chronic failure to meet an SLA?)

So the inclusion of efforts provisions in contracts isn't the best approach if an objective standard can be used instead. So why do efforts provisions exist in contracts anyway? Because it's easier to throw in an efforts clause in a contract rather than draft something better! And effective contract drafting isn't easy. It takes time and thought. But if your contracts contain efforts clauses, you would do well to consider their replacement. And I can certainly help with that, ahem, effort.
If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is and my website is And my email address is Thanks!


Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Is There a Moral Imperative to Plain English? Part 1 - Examples

"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." 

Thus begins Stephen King's epic story of the gunslinger, Roland Deschain, and the popular Dark Tower series of novels describing his adventures. But King didn't have to write this sentence that way; he could have consulted with the typical lawyer, politician, or company PR department first. Had he done so, the sentence may have appeared so:

"The bad hombre who was dressed mostly in dark clothing and running fast across an arid land was pursued by a multi-armed, extremely dangerous, and notorious vigilante."
The difference in these two sentences is clear. King's concise short sentence creates an image that grabs the reader's attention and raises provocative questions. Who is the man in black? Who is the gunslinger? Why is he after the man in black? But the Bizarro World Stephen King sentence - with its ethnic slur, passive voice, ambiguity, suppositions, and superfluous adjectives …

The BUSKLAW November Newsletter: Dead Turkeys and Deader Tort Damages

November is the month of Thanksgiving. And Thanksgiving for most folks means time with family and friends (better yet, family who are friends), an appropriate but modestly-priced wine, and a turkey. Turkeys should live their brief sojourn on this earth in relative peace before winding up on our table. But that was not to be for the poor fowls in the recent Kent County (MI) Circuit Court case of White Acres, LLC et al v. Shur Green Farms, LLC et al

The case involves a plethora of parties (hence the "et al"), all of whom were in the distribution chain of a biofuel called Lascadoil. Unlike its parent product, Lasalocid, Lascadoil is not an appropriate turkey-feed additive. (Does anything with "oil" in its name sound fit for human or animal consumption?) So when a bunch of turkeys died after eating feed tainted with Lascadoil, the lawsuits started flying; each party was sued by its downstream buyer who in turn sued its upstream seller. And numerous insurance companies…

The BUSKLAW September Newsletter: Lawyers and Their Goofy Words - and What to Do About It

Growing up, I was told that lawyers were smart cookies. After all, getting a law degree isn't an easy task. You first go to college and find a subject that is best suited to how your brain works so that you can maintain a high GPA. In my case, I quickly discovered that I wasn't a good fit for the "hard sciences." So I took a lot of Political Science and English courses, learned how to write fairly well, suffered through the tedious law school aptitude test on October 20, 1973, graduated with a B.A. degree in 1974 and then went on to law school. There, I endured a legal education infused with the Socratic method (here's an example), suffered occasional migraines (because some of my law professors were truly smart but couldn't teach) and graduated with my law degree on Mother's Day, 1977. Passed the Michigan bar exam and by God, became an honest-to-goodness lawyer in November of 1977!

So having gone through undergraduate studies, law school, and the bar exam…