Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Best + Efforts = ?
There is a common misconception that the obligation to satisfy a “best efforts” clause requires rigorous performance, regardless of hardship or cost to the promisor. This misconception of the meaning of the term “best efforts” stems from the divergence between common parlance and jurisprudence. Considering the term in the vernacular, “best efforts” implies superlative action. Therefore, when one puts forth one's “best efforts,” such action is not simply good, or better, but the best according to one's capabilities. James M. Van Vliet, Jr., “Best Efforts” Promises Under Illinois Law, Ill. B.J. 5 (Dec. 2000). The implication is that to satisfy a promise for “best efforts,” there is no limit as to what one will do, no hardship or expense too great to satisfy the obligation. In fact, it would appear that many believe this to be the definition of “best efforts.”
Jurisprudentially, some courts have similarly applied a rigorous standard when interpreting the term “best efforts.” Courts have applied such strict interpretation of “best efforts” clauses to obligate a party to enlist every possible effort to fulfill such party's promise, regardless of the economic consequences. In analyzing “best efforts” as a component of “good faith,” the court in In re Heard suggested that a “best efforts” obligation should be satisfied even at a loss to the one fulfilling the duty. In re Heard, 6 Bank. 876, 884 (Bank. W.D. KY. 1980).
The “strict constructionist” approach adopted by just a few courts seems to have fueled the notion that “best efforts” requires that one must always take every step imaginable in order to satisfy the subject obligation. Yet, it is a less stringent standard for “best efforts” clauses that is supported by the bulk of the case law. For example, the Triple-A court refuted the concept that the term “best efforts” connotes making every conceivable effort to satisfy an obligation. Triple-A Baseball Club Associates v. Northeastern Baseball, Inc., 832 F.2d 214, 228 (1st Cir. 1987). Similarly, the court in Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. noted that in New York “best efforts” does not strip the promisor of its right to give reasonable consideration to its own interests. Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 601 F.2d 609, 614 (2nd Cir. 1979).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.