I am marketing my property development and used the following words in my website (www.rozellegreenvillage.com):
"Upon completion, it should become the residential development with the highest possible rating and will apply to be certified as such when a system similar to that of Australia is introduced in South Africa."
The Green Building Council of South Africa (GBCSA) is threatening action against me because they say: "The first Green Star SA Tool (office) is still in development, so there could be no way that a developer would know whether their project would achieve a certain rating or not".
They want me to say: That I will "submit the project for certification once the Multi-Unit-Residential-Tool has been launced by the GBCSA."
I say as "marketing language" this is too insipent and that I cannot see that my statement can mean that I assume that my development will for sure get "the highest rating" and that I merely express an opinion in my website.
The crux of the matter: I maintain the difference is using the word "should" and not "shall" and that I, in the website wording, admit that it is subject to an approval process by stating: "will apply".
It has now become a difference of opinion based on the ability or inability to apply English!
I will appreciate it highly to have your learned opinion.
'Should' here does not state categorically that it will achieve this, and is not synonymous with 'shall'. It implies to me that if the process runs smoothly and fairly when it is implemented, the development meets the criteria for such a rating. However, that does bring up the question of whether their criteria will be similar to or the same as those used in Australia. You could sidestep the issue and a fight by stating that you will be applying for this certification as soon as it is ready and that the development uses the highest international standards, like the Australian ones, which would emphasise the standards as facts without getting into a fight with the GBCSA.