nor dishonest.”); see also Black Horse Lane Assoc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 228 F.3d 275, 288 (3d Cir.2000) (same). Without bad motive or intention, discretionary decisions that happen to result in economic disadvantage to the other party are of no legal significance. See, e.g., Abbott v. Amoco Oil Co., supra, 189 Ill.Dec. 88, 619 N.E.2d at 796; Adams v. G.J. Creel and Sons, Inc., supra, 465 S.E.2d at 85-86. Bad motive or intention is essential, for, as stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, “[c]ontract law does not require parties to behave altruistically toward each other; it does not proceed on the philosophy that I am my brother’s keeper.” Original Great Am. Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cookies, Ltd., 970 F.2d 273, 280 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also JRT, Inc. v. TCBY Sys., Inc., 52
holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions holding that franchiser may not use contractually provided discretion arbitrarily or capriciously to place franchisee in detriment franchisers decisions must be justified as honest legitimate business decisions holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues holding that traditional allocation of burden of proof to the party challenging the decisions applies to decisions under the tca holding that cue review applies only to prior final decisions of agencies of original jurisdiction ros and not to prior decisions of the board