In Rhodia International Holdings Limited & Another v Huntsman International LLC [2007] EWHC 292 (Comm) the Commercial Court rejected an argument that a "reasonable endeavours" undertaking should be equated with a "best endeavours" undertaking, and that there was simply no discernible difference between the two. Despite the frequency with which these obligations are routinely accepted, there is surprisingly little reasoned authority on the scope and extent of what such an obligation actually entails. What authority does exist is often confusing, considering that this is such a deceptively straightforward concept. Although only first instance, this decision provides some useful clarification in this area to parties entering into these obligations. Please click here for further details.