The British consistently measure agreements against a standard of reasonableness. What would a reasonable person understand this commitment to mean? What would a reasonable person do in these circumstances?
This standard governs how agreements are interpreted, how disputes are resolved, and how flexibility is exercised. Being called “unreasonable” is a serious charge — it implies you are operating outside the shared framework of mutual understanding on which agreements depend. When disagreements arise, framing your position in terms of reasonableness — what a fair-minded person would expect — is far more effective than insisting on strict technical rights. The British system assumes that reasonable people can find common ground, and it has limited patience for positions that strike others as disproportionate or inflexible.
Comments