290 Further, I can see nothing unfair, unreasonable or immoral about the conduct of National Foods by failing to provide exclusivity to the McMahons, in circumstances where National Foods did not promise to do so, either expressly, impliedly or by the alleged collateral agreement. In this regard, counsel for the McMahons relied upon the same surrounding circumstances upon which reliance was placed to establish the existence of an express term of exclusivity or, in the alternative, the alleged collateral agreement. However, the unconscionable conduct case sought to be raised by the McMahons in this regard suffers from the same defect as the collateral agreement case. It is nowhere alleged that National Foods acted unconscionably because it failed to use its reasonable or best, or reasonable, endeavours to remove Moonya as a competitor in the McMahon territories. Although there was some evidence given by Mr Byrne concerning attempts to reach agreement for the purchase by National Foods of the Moonya business, and Mr Byrne was cross-examined about the possibility of National Foods unilaterally terminating Moonya's uncontracted distributorship by giving reasonable notice, these issues were ventilated in the absence of any pleading that National Foods had undertaken an obligation to use its reasonable or best endeavours to ensure that Moonya would be prevented from selling Pura milk products in the McMahon territories; or that its failure to do so constituted unconscionable conduct. In these circumstances, the full extent of the endeavours by National Foods to terminate Moonya's right to distribute Pura milk products in the McMahon territories was not investigated at trial, and was not the subject of final submissions. Accordingly, the case based on allegations of unconscionable conduct is rejected.