Purchase of alcohol with a minor present Hello people who know a lot more about alcohol laws than me, So a general gist of my question is, why is it legal for certain stores to deny the sale of alcohol to me (who is over 21) with a minor present (20 year old). So some background information on this, on my 21st birthday I went to Sam's club with some friends to buy alcohol for my birthday party, I heard from other people that they would deny sale if not everyone in your party at checkout is over 21, so to avoid that hassle I had my friends just walk right past the checkout line and I purchased it by myself. Yesterday afternoon I went to a Sam's Club near my place with one of my roommates (she is 20 years old). We were doing some apartment shopping for groceries and misc things for our place, and on the way out I was asked by my parents over the phone to pick up a few bottles of wine for dinner that night. Not thinking to much about it I grabbed a few bottles and threw it in my cart that was piled high with items. Once we shopped for everything on the list, we went to checkout, piled everything on the conveyor belt and had the sales associate scan it all. While I was standing there with my membership card and credit card and my roommate was loading stuff back into the cart, the associate got to the wine bottles and asked for the ID's of both myself AND my roommate for the sale of the alcohol. I argued saying that I was buying the alcohol for personal use not to give to the minor, and she called over her manager who confirmed what she said. That they have to ID everyone at the checkout lane and ensure that they are all over 21. Clearly my roommate couldn't meet that so they took the wine out and we continued our purchase. Over this past weekend, I went to a Ralph's with my girlfriend (20 years old and she wasn't going to drink) and purchased some beer and mike's hard lemonade. We had a few other things to pick up so she carried one of 24 packs of alcohol to the register while I carried the rest. She went in first, and set the alcohol down and gave it the cashier to scan, and walked right on past to pick it up at the other end. I dropped off my stuff and after that they asked for my ID (which I gave without an issue) and I paid for it all and left. No hassle, no extra questions, nothing else. I am under the assumption that stores "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", but how does the denial of sale of alcohol work? Is this Sam's Club policy? Is it a California law? Is it a city/county law? Some questions(plus the ones right above) that I would like answered if possible: Where is the law/rule that states you can't sell alcohol to a legal adult if a minor is present? Why was I able to purchase it at Ralph's without an issue? Was Ralph's the one in the wrong here for NOT denying the sale? If this law/policy does exist? What is the point of it if I can just make the minor wait outside, purchase it, and give it to them? When I was a kid my Dad purchased alcohol (beer) all the time at Wal-Mart, Ralphs, etc (not at Sam's Club as far as I can recall), and never had this issue. If a minor went with him and he wanted to purchase alcohol, would they deny him for the exact same reason they denied me? If they wouldn't have denied it to him why would they have denied it to me (profiling)? Is the purpose of this law/policy just to make it more difficult to give alcohol to minors? It doesn't change the fact that the person purchasing it is over 21 (and they accept the liabilities if they do end up giving it to a minor) and can just go next door and purchase alcohol there? I am not pissed that they denied the sale as I should've paid more attention like I did the first time, I was just rather annoyed that I had to drive to another alcohol selling location and pay more there. I am mainly curious as to why this happened.
I think this relates to individual stores interpretation of California's "ABC Laws": § 25658. Sale to and consumption by person under 21 years of age; Use by peace officers to apprehend sellers of alcoholic beverages to minors (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away any alcoholic beverage to any person under 21 years of age is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) Except as provided in Section 25667 or 25668, any person under 21 years of age who purchases any alcoholic beverage, or any person under 21 years of age who consumes any alcoholic beverage in any on-sale premises, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (c) Any person who violates subdivision (a) by purchasing any alcoholic beverage for, or furnishing, giving, or giving away any alcoholic beverage to, a person under 21 years of age, and the person under 21 years of age thereafter consumes the alcohol and thereby proximately causes great bodily injury or death to himself, herself, or any other person, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The last part is the part that scares business owners. Some interpret it as "if they furnish alcohol to you (a person over 21) and have reasonable suspicion that the purchase will be given to the minor, the person furnishing the alcohol is guilty of a misdemeanor". This is absolutely true in the case of bar owners/bartenders. If they sell somebody a drink, even if that person is over 21, and that drink is then given to a minor, they can be (probably not successfully) held responsible in some form for any injury that person sustains or commits as a result of alcohol consumption. Some stores take this much more seriously (because a violation can mean the loss/suspension of the liquor license) than others, and it is at the stores discretion to deny the sale based on any suspicion, whether based in reality or not.
Two people exchanging goods or services on a commercial basis and then pretending it was two gifts is tax evasion. It's not a gift. It's a commercial sale that you lie about by 'putting' a different 'label' on it. Sometimes two people will give mutual gifts, e.g. if you come to my wedding: I give you dinner, you give me some kitchenware. Yet there's nothing commercial about it. So that's not income for either party. However, if you're talking about two businesses making sales to each other, that is very much income, regardless of what you badge it.
I assume that &quot;in Oregon&quot; means that the donor (transferor) and recipient (transferee) are both in Oregon, also that neither party happens to be a licensed gun dealer. You turn to ORS 166.435. The answer (reflecting the logic of the statute) is &quot;No&quot;, with some exceptions. There are conditions (subsections 2 and 3) where it is allowed if certain restrictions are satisfied. But you don't have to abide by those restrictions if subsection 4 is the case. Apart from transfers to and from the government, you can freely transfer a firearm under subsection (4)c to a spouse, domestic partner, parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, first cousin, niece, nephew, or spouse or domestic partner any of the above. And under (4d), because of the death of firearm owner if &quot;conducted or facilitated by a personal representative&quot; (probate) or trustee as created in a will and transferee is one of those relatives. Not a friend, not a second cousin, not an ex-spouse, definitely not a stranger. Otherwise, you have to comply with subsection (2-3). That means, you do the transfer through a licensed dealer and you must request a background check (you do not have to ascertain that the check was done). Under federal law (Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986), you tell the police, they check if you are precluded by law from gun ownership, then they forget that you asked, they don't keep a record of transfers. It is illegal for a minor to possess a firearm ([ORS 166.250])3, but there is no prohibition against a minor owning a firearm. There are also specific exemptions where a minor can possess a firearm (e.g. temporarily for hunting or target practice).
The reality is that it is almost never an acceptable tactic to use in any jurisdiction where I ever have/or currently do practice. The bar is relatively small no matter where you are; even in bigger cities. Your reputation is your most valuable asset and it would be crippled if this became your M.O., or was used in anything but the most rare and egregious situations (e.g. withholding evidence, lying to the judge, tampering with jury). Small violations (which are seemingly big in the heat of trial) happen every day and if you even suggested this it would come back on you more times than not. This is exponentially true in the criminal arena where the Judges and prosecutors interact on a daily basis and have formed collegial relationships. If you practice criminal law you often need to form good working relationships with the ADAs or AAGs since most cases get disposed of through negotiations with these very individuals. I have been in situations where my colleagues and I discussed it, opined on how it would be appropriate, but in the end have never gone that far. One time things were so bad with opposing counsel on so many levels, I considered it; however, I was a newish lawyer and my mentor at the time told me that he had never seen anyone but a federal court judge issue a sanction and aside from that, had never even seen it requested by a lawyer in the local bar. And these were horribly bad violations of the rules of procedure, conduct unbecoming, etc. So, I would suggest avoiding this practice. My rule of thumb is that unless the offending practice is so egregious that one would be technically duty bound to report the conduct to the bar, it is not appropriate to ask for sanctions.
tl;dr It seems like a bad idea. Massachusetts's statutes don't seem to expressly prohibit it—and I didn't find any Massachusetts cases where the registered agent's age was at issue. But registered agents have some fiduciary duties, and the agent has to have the capacity to receive all forms of legal process. Some possible roadblocks are: &quot;minor&quot; is a broad term that courts don't seem to have interpreted in the context of registered agents, and each form of legal process sets its own requirements. Background First, the term &quot;minor&quot; encompasses extremes: a 1 year old doesn't have the capacity to receive and forward legal process to the intended party, but a 16 year old might. Some jurisdictions recognize a &quot;suitable age and discretion&quot; rule, though it hasn't been extended to the context of registered agents. See, e.g., Fed. R. of Civ. Proc. 4(e)(2)(B). Massachusetts isn't one of those jurisdictions. See Mass. R. Civ. Pro. 4(d)(1). In the broader law of agency, minors do have the capacity to serve as &quot;agents&quot;—though their ability to affect the legal relations of the principal is limited. For example, the enforceability of minors' contracts is an issue, and minors can't enter into durable powers of attorney or serve as trustees. See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 3.04. The problems associated with appointing a minor as an agent in Massachusetts are longstanding. In Commonwealth v. O'Leary, 143 Mass. 95 (1886), a mother had her minor daughter enter into a contract of sale for alcohol for the mother's use. While the court recognized the daughter as the mother's agent, it still characterized the transaction as an illegal sale &quot;to&quot; a minor. In the case of a registered agent, the primary action Massachusetts expects of the agent is the receipt and forwarding of the principal's legal correspondence. Courts have found that this creates a fiduciary duty on the registered agent's part. See Int'l Envtl. Mgmt. v. United Corporate Servs., 858 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir. 2017). This makes sense because the service of process satisfies constitutional requirements embodied in the Due Process clause. So in predicting whether a court would extend the &quot;suitable age and discretion&quot; rule to registered agents (or even needs to), it would likely consider that the agent has fiduciary duties, albeit more limited than those of a typical trustee. Second, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156B § 49 governs corporations and requires that the agent be capable of receiving &quot;all lawful processes in any action or proceeding&quot;. When the agent is an individual (as opposed to a company), that person must be a resident of Massachusetts and have a &quot;business address in the commonwealth&quot;. Mass. Gen. Laws 156C § 5 governs the process for LLCs, and Mass Gen. Laws 156D § 15.07 details it for non-Massachusetts companies. Massachusetts's statutes don't expressly prohibit minors from serving as registered agents, but the agent must have the capacity to receive all forms of lawful process. Thus if some lawful process requires delivery to an adult, the minor wouldn't be capable of receiving it.
My thinking is that there was no meeting of the minds, thus no acceptance. ( I can see that shipping the goods implies acceptance, however I understand that acceptance implies a meeting of the minds - and there would have been subterfuge to modify the return page with the lower amount - thus at the moment of apparent acceptance there was no actual acceptance) I doubt you would have a case against the other party criminally, but quite possibly in a civil court.
The law doesn’t “defines a minor as a legal person below (some age)” It defines it as a natural person below (some age).
In principle, a verbal contract is just as binding as a written contract. The catch is that it can be difficult to prove what was said. Unless you have witnesses, it would just be your word against his. As DStanley says in the comments, if you have proof that you paid half -- canceled checks or receipts or whatever -- that would be evidence that there was some sort of agreement. Whether your daughter is allowed to drive the car on a specific day depends not just on who owns the car but who has legal custody of your daughter. If a friend of hers said that it is okay with him for her to drive his car to a wild party where there will be drugs and an orgy, the fact that he has full title to the car does not mean that her parents have no right to tell her she can't go! You didn't say what the custody arrangements are, but if you have full custody or shared custody, this would give you certain rights to tell her what she is and is not allowed to do.