| Comment Number: | 522418-04115 |
| Received: | 6/24/2006 2:38:49 PM |
| Organization: | Vemma |
| Commenter: | Maurice Snowden |
| State: | AZ |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I do NOT agree with the proposed ruling as it will unduly infringe on the Legitimate Business Practices of Law Abiding Organizations. You should NOT be working to restrict a home-based business based on "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". That is NOT the way it should be. I do agree that a person has a right to fully evaluate an 'opportunity' before obligating themselves further, just as they should evaluate ANY business, i.e. store front, franchise, product repair, internet, service, etc. If someone chooses to participate in operating ANY type of business, it is the responsibility of that individual or group to do their own 'due diligence' while utilizing all available information, without causing the disruption of said business. It has been notred for quite some time that 'most' businesses do not survive their first 2 years in business...not necessarily due to the nature of 'the business', but rather due to the business practices (or lack thereof) of the business operators, which again may be due to the business owners lack of proper business training. For example purposes ONLY, a mechanic may choose to purchase a succesful vehicle repair shop. While the person may be well qualified to repair vehicles, they may not be a good business-minded person. Should this person be restricted from this purchase because they do not have the necessary knowledge to operate a business? I feel is would be their obligation to either learn the details of operating said business or to locate the appropriate assistance. Just because there may be many failures of the vehicle repair industry, as an example ONLY, should not preclude restricting the sale of a vehicle repair shop to someone who would want to purchase same.