ABC Ltd. owned a shopping mall whose main tenant, Drugstore World, agreed to relocate to a competing mall owned by XYZ Ltd. Drugstore World consented to do so because of generous inducements offered by XYZ Ltd. These inducements included XYZ Ltd. agreeing to take over Drugstore World’s lease with ABC Ltd. In this way, XYZ Ltd. became a tenant of ABC Ltd—its main competitor. Under the agreement between these two mall owners, XYZ Ltd was obligated to use “best efforts” to fill the space but seemed to be taking few steps to do so. In response, ABC Ltd brought a number of possible subtenants to XYZ Ltd.’s attention but XYZ Ltd rejected them all. ABC Ltd is convinced that the XYZ Ltd rejected these potential subtenants for one, single, strategic reason—to make ABC Ltd’s mall less attractive and busy by keeping the space vacant. If this is correct, is ABC Ltd’s conduct in breach of the duty of honesty explained in Bhasin v Hry new as discussed earlier in this chapter?