In the absence of other judicial considerations, “commercially reasonable efforts” are ambiguous and must be used with caution or explicitly defined in the contract to which they apply. [52] What constitutes “reasonable effort” is a question of fact that must be clarified in all circumstances. Re: City of Cornwall and CUPE Local 3251. The adjudicator discussed what should reasonably be done when reviewing applications for authorization. : One way to avoid possible problems, difficulties or legal disputes with the meaning of these norms is to define the standard in the agreement (specify the nature of the efforts to be made) and not to leave its interpretation to third parties. Instead of “best efforts”, “reasonable efforts” or “commercially reasonable efforts”, we prefer the term “reasonable efforts”. Here`s an example: In this case, the landlord states that they will make reasonable efforts to fill the empty rent so that the offending tenant is not responsible for the remaining rent payments. The problem is that tenants and landlords will likely have different ideas about what these “reasonable efforts” mean, especially if the vacancy is not filled quickly. Another variation is the term “reasonable efforts.” This has not been explicitly addressed in Canadian jurisprudence, although one American author suggests that the words “best efforts” and “reasonable efforts” are probably similar in that “reasonable” is largely irrelevant in the latter sentence.2 This is important in Canada (as in the United States) to the extent that the term “reasonable efforts” could get you into trouble. If you think it means something less than “best effort.” Because it doesn`t have to be. The best practice is to use “best efforts” (to “leave nothing to chance”) and “reasonable efforts” (to “not reasonably return certain stones”).
In the labour relations context, the “reasonable effort” standard10 has been considered for applications for authorization: With respect to “commercially reasonable efforts,” New York courts generally assess a party`s performance against an objective measure of reasonableness as opposed to a party`s subjective belief in what the contract requires. The bereavement`s activity is not to provide essential services and obviously does not have to be provided at a specific time. in order to decide whether a particular leave request can reasonably be denied, factors such as the total cost to the employer, the reasons for harassment of a particular leave schedule, the possibility of adjusting the course outline to take into account the complainants` requests for leave without the need for their specific replacement at the expense of the City, and the proportion of the total agreed holiday schedule that responds to the City`s desire for efficiency and financial responsibility, with the bereaved wanting a vacation plan that takes into account their personal preferences. In summary, the principles drawn from the cases deal with the issue of “best efforts”: Justice Dorgan noted that the “best efforts” standard is an onerous standard, exemplified by the phrase “nothing wrong”, albeit in the general context and purpose of the contract itself, and that it is more onerous than “reasonable effort”. Justice Dorgan`s analysis of “best efforts” in atmospheric diving has been confirmed by a number of Canadian decisions.5 Parties often use the term “reasonable efforts” in contracts where the person does not want to accept strict liability for non-performance to ensure that something is done, but intends to comply with it until something happens beyond their control. In contrast, “reasonable efforts” imply that what can be done must be done within the context and purpose of the contract, but without requiring either party to spare “no effort”. “Reasonable efforts” are a less onerous standard than “best efforts”. The parties regularly enter into contracts in order to achieve the desired result.