{"id":3649,"date":"2021-03-23T18:34:48","date_gmt":"2021-03-23T22:34:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-109-issue-3-february-2021\/is-this-really-the-best-we-can-do-american-courts-irrational-efforts-clause-jurisprudence-and-how-we-can-start-to-fix-it\/"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:13:35","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:13:35","slug":"is-this-really-the-best-we-can-do-american-courts-irrational-efforts-clause-jurisprudence-and-how-we-can-start-to-fix-it","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-109\/volume-109-issue-3-february-2021\/is-this-really-the-best-we-can-do-american-courts-irrational-efforts-clause-jurisprudence-and-how-we-can-start-to-fix-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Is This Really the Best We Can Do? American Courts\u2019 Irrational Efforts Clause Jurisprudence and How We Can Start to Fix It"},"content":{"rendered":"

This Note presents an original argument regarding a significant and recurring issue within commercial contract law: efforts clauses.\u00a0 Many practitioners perceive efforts clauses as operating on a sliding scale, with \u201cbest efforts\u201d imposing more burdensome obligations than \u201creasonable efforts,\u201d for example.\u00a0 The majority of American courts, however, reject this hierarchical notion.\u00a0 Reasoning on both a linguistic and prudential basis, this Note argues that efforts clauses should be interpreted hierarchically.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

This seemingly mundane linguistic decision is significant because efforts clauses permeate contracts throughout commercial industries: licensing, real estate, M&A, advertising, and goods and services, among many others.\u00a0 And contentious negotiations over variations in these clauses are not just theoretical; lawyers really do spend meaningful billable hours haggling over whether to insert \u201cbest\u201d or \u201creasonable\u201d despite the current judicial consensus, including recent, significant decisions in New York and Delaware. \u00a0A disconnect between practitioners and the courts is therefore consequential, as is a judicial interpretation that makes little sense.<\/em><\/p>\n

All of the current literature regarding efforts clauses either describes the disconnect between practitioners and the courts or defends it.\u00a0 No scholarly work has argued for a contrary approach: namely, that the current judicial schema should be fundamentally reworked.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

This Note takes the novel approach of illustrating the disconnect between practitioners and the courts and arguing in favor of a hierarchical schema.\u00a0 First, this Note reasons on pure linguistic grounds.\u00a0 Then, it offers prudential reasons why a hierarchical approach would be preferable to the current system.<\/em><\/p>\n

This Note also rebuts the most prominent counterarguments against the workability of a hierarchical schema, looking to British and Canadian courts for guidance.\u00a0 In addition, this Note offers recommendations for contract drafters navigating the current system, including model contract language for lawyers who\u2014despite the prevailing judicial approach\u2014nonetheless want to differentiate between the three most common efforts standards: \u201cbest efforts,\u201d \u201ccommercially reasonable efforts,\u201d and \u201creasonable efforts.<\/em><\/p>\n

Continue reading\u00a0Is This Really the Best We Can Do? American Courts\u2019 Irrational Efforts Clause Jurisprudence and How We Can Start to Fix It<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This Note presents an original argument regarding a significant and recurring issue within commercial contract law: efforts clauses.\u00a0 Many practitioners perceive efforts clauses as operating on a sliding scale, with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5086,"featured_media":0,"parent":3628,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-3649","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5086"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3649"}],"version-history":[{"count":138,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3649\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23302,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3649\/revisions\/23302"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3628"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}