Opinion ID: 715363
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Pioneer Standard violate its contract with Maxim?

Text: 25 ADI's first argument is that, as a matter of law, Pioneer Standard could not violate the Maxim contract's best efforts clause. We disagree. 26 There is no firm rule as to what constitutes adequate best efforts. Some cases have suggested that a best efforts clause required the promisor to employ the same efforts he has employed in other contracts where the adequacy of his efforts have not been questioned. Olympia Hotels Corp. v. Johnson Wax Dev. Corp., 908 F.2d 1363, 1373 (7th Cir.1993). Other cases merely require that the promisor not undertake activity that is so manifestly harmful ... as to justify the court in saying there was a breach of the covenant. Van Valkenburgh, Nooger & Meville, Inc. v. Hayden Publishing Co., 330 N.Y.S.2d 329, 334, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 875 (1972). 27 Essentially, what we have here is a dispute over the interpretation of best efforts. This question is properly one for the jury. United Telecomm v. American Television & Comm. Corp., 536 F.2d 1310, 1319 (10th Cir.1976) (Both parties had introduced evidence bearing on the negotiations and the meaning intended for the term best efforts. When the interpretation is in dispute as is was here, it is a question for the jury.). Therefore, we reject ADI's argument that, as a matter of law, there was no breach of the contract. 28