Thanks to this item on Lexology by Kimarie Cheang of Holman Fenwick Willan, I learned that earlier this year, in the case of KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M) Sdn Bhd  SGCA 16 (here), the Singapore Court of Appeal had considered the implications of an obligation to use “all reasonable endeavours.”
The court surveyed relevant caselaw in Singapore, England, and Australia. From my perspective, the result contained good news and not-so-good news.
The good news is that the court held that “we do not find it useful to distinguish an ‘all reasonable endeavours’ obligation from a ‘best endeavours’ obligation.”
The not-so-good news is that the court held that “We accept that an ‘all reasonable endeavours’ obligation is ordinarily more onerous than a ‘reasonable endeavours’ obligation.” As I explain in my recent article on best endeavours and its variants under English law (here), that distinction is inconsistent with how the phrases are actually used. For a complete analysis, see chapter 8 of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting.
More broadly, this case shows how courts all over the world find themselves wrestling with problematic English-language contract usages.
The lesson for drafters is the same as always: Use just reasonable efforts, as that allows you to avoid the confusion that invariably follows when you use a different efforts standard. (Go here to see why I recommend you use efforts instead of endeavours.)
Incidentally, I’ll be in Singapore on 21 November to give a public “Drafting Clearer Contracts” seminar (more information here).