body: [*O'Sullivan & Hilliard's The Law of Contract* (Core Texts Series)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/OSullivan-Hilliards-Law-Contract-Janet/dp/0198807821/ref=dp_ob_title_bk) (2018 8 ed). p. 83
  
  
  
  > 
  > 4.29 A similar issue arose in a slightly diﬀerent way in *Shaker v Vistajet Group Holding SA*
  >  (2012). There, the claimant paid a deposit in respect of the purchase of an aircraft from
  >  the defendant under the terms of a letter agreed by the two parties. The letter expressly
  >  provided that the claimant agreed to proceed in good faith and to use reasonable endeavours to agree the formal sale contract and associated documents. The formal contract
  >  could not be agreed, so the claimant sought repayment of the deposit, but the defendant
  >  refused, contending that the claimant had not complied with its **[1.]** good faith and **[2.]** reasonable endeavour obligations. Teare J accepted that the intention of the agreement was that
  >  the deposit could only be recovered if these obligations had been complied with, but
  >  held that the obligations were unenforceable because of the impossibility of ‘polic[ing]’ them, that is, of working out whether they had been breached or not. It distinguished
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  p. 84
  
  
  
  > 
  > the *Petromec* decision on the basis that there were objective criteria available in that
  >  case to assist the court in determining whether the obligation had been breached. It is
  >  respectfully suggested that Teare J may have been too ready to find that the obligations
  >  were unenforceable, as **this [unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations]** would have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit even if
  >  it had acted in bad faith\*\* (which on the facts it did not). There are many types of conduct
  >  that everyone would agree constitute bad faith, so if the conduct fell into this category,
  >  there would be no practical impediment to the court policing the obligation.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  As the contract had the two obligations that I numbered on p. 43, I don't understand the emboldened sentence. 
  
  
  If the claimant acted in bad faith, then wouldn't it breach [1.]? If it did, then why would the unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations "have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit"? 
  
  
  
title: Why'd a claimant be allowed to recover deposit if it acts in bad faith, when a contract obligated good faith and reasonable endeavour?