<p>Many real-world negotiations are persistently delayed, yet imposing deadlines is costly because it induces inefficient separations. Do all deadlines in one-on-one market transactions need to be perfectly credible? To improve trade efficiency, I propose a mechanism that introduces an intermediate, imperfectly credible deadline to facilitate agreement. Using a canonical seller–buyer dynamic bargaining model with a credible deadline, I analytically characterize the optimal degree of credibility of such a deadline that maximizes trade efficiency, leading to early agreements without triggering separations. Under a non-zero risk of separation, the seller is tempted to discount the price to secure a payoff, while the buyer is more likely to accept at the intermediate deadline because pricing resembles ultimatum offers. A laboratory experiment provides direct evidence of the mechanism’s effects that extend beyond the theoretical benchmark.</p>