“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare
Let’s get this straight: The following terms can mean something or they can mean less than anything.
They can provide:
- protection for reliant investors so they can make decisions that efficiently allocate their capital for worthwhile (not fraudulent) activities or
- they can be another in a long line of broken promises, cynical wordsmithing and blatant misrepresentations that lead to personal and economic catastrophes.
To me the following terms are interchangeable:
- good faith,
- fair dealings.
- commercially reasonable or
- unconscionable conduct.
Number 1 and 2 have been implicit in all United States contracts, forever. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 were added up together in Ontario, Canada since 2000 (S. 3, Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000).
All of the terms have not delivered on their promise.
Big Franchising cooled out hot legislators and rallies friendly parliamentarians and regulators so they can continue to sell poo-filled, and enable more common, blatantly toxic franchise systems such as 3 for 1 Pizza and Wings.
I like heraldry and symbolism because they form the basis for corporate identity and branding. This one is Queen Elizabeth II’s Personal Standard in Australia (left) and I included the Queen’s Personal Flag to show the rose garland detail.
The flag consists of a banner of the coat of arms of Australia, defaced with a gold seven-pointed star with a blue disc containing the letter E below a crown, surrounded by a garland of golden roses. Source