Can a restaurant bypass Oregon&#39;s straw law by also selling boxes of straws? It appears that a restaurant could very easily circumvent Oregon's plastic straw law (2019 SB90) by selling boxes of disposable plastic straws in addition to selling food and drink (with individual straws). Section 1(1)(b): “Convenience store” means a business that, for compensation, offers or provides a range of commodities that includes food and beverages. Section 1(2): (a) A food and beverage provider or convenience store may not provide a single-use plastic straw to a consumer unless the consumer specifically requests the single-use plastic straw. ... (c) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply to a convenience store that: (A) Sells or offers single-use plastic straws for sale in bulk or unconnected with a sale or provision of food or a beverage... By selling straws, food, and drink, I believe they are &quot;for compensation, offer[ing] or provid[ing] a range of commodities that includes food and beverages,&quot; and therefore are a &quot;convenience store.&quot; They are &quot;[s]ell[ing] or offer[ing] single-use plastic straws for sale in bulk or unconnected with a sale or provision of food or a beverage&quot;, so the prohibition does not apply. Is this correct?
Rather than deciding that a restaurant is a convenience store, the restaurant owner can, following the text that you quoted (&quot;unless the consumer specifically requests the single-use plastic straw&quot;), wait for the customer to request a straw, in which case they can give the customer a straw. If a restaurant owner decides to declare that it is a convenience store and not a restaurant, there could be unintended consquences, since (for examples) a convenience store can't serve a glass of beer.
I believe that under federal law, the franchise owner cannot avoid overtime in this way. A similar case was considered by the Labor Department in 2005 (FLSA2005-17NA): This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the application of the overtime requirements of section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to employees who work at two different health care facilities operated by one management company. It is our opinion that all hours worked at any of the facilities must be combined for the purpose of calculating hours worked under the FLSA. The letter explains the logic pretty clearly, with citations. When an employee is "jointly" employed by two or more employers, then the hours are all combined for overtime purposes. 29 CFR 791.2(b) explains how "jointly" is determined: Where the employee performs work which simultaneously benefits two or more employers, or works for two or more employers at different times during the workweek, a joint employment relationship generally will be considered to exist in situations such as: (1) Where there is an arrangement between the employers to share the employee's services, as, for example, to interchange employees; or (2) Where one employer is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer (or employers) in relation to the employee; or (3) Where the employers are not completely disassociated with respect to the employment of a particular employee and may be deemed to share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. Paragraph (1) applies: the two employers (the two restaurants) have an arrangement to share the employee's services (the owner is explicitly dividing their hours). Paragraph (3) also applies: both employers are under common control, since the same person owns both. They certainly are "not completely dissociated". The same logic would seem to apply even if the two locations are different restaurants, or different types of businesses. The 2005 letter explains further: Factors that are relevant in finding joint employment include, for example, whether there are common officers or directors of the companies; the nature of the common management support provided; whether employees have priority for vacancies at the other companies; whether there are any common insurance, pension or payroll systems; and whether there are any common hiring seniority, recordkeeping or billing systems. These also seem likely to apply in your hypothetical cases.
Federal law bars possession of guns by felons and also bars the use of straw purchasers. The primary statute involved in 18 U.S.C. § 992(g). Being in a gun show would not be per se illegal, absent an atypical parole or probation condition. But, in this case it looks like the individuals held the guns which would constitute possession, and it looks like they also arranged for a straw purchase. Merely touching a gun with a single finger would probably not constitute possession of a gun for this purpose, although the incentive not to test the boundaries is great, because the sentences are so severe. (Incidentally, there are more convictions for this offense in Missouri than anyplace else in the United States).
No Let's consider a similar scenario. If you made a beverage which poisoned a number of people, would you be absolved of liability because you gave it away for free? Of course not. As there is no contract between you, they would have to bring an action against you in the tort of negligence or negligent misstatement OR under consumer protection law. To succeed at tort they would need to prove that you owed them a duty of care; from Donoghue v Stevenson "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure ... persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably have them in contemplation ...". Most cases will founder on your inability to foresee the use to which your software may be put. Consumer law is jurisdiction specific but they generally contain warranties that what you provide (gratis or otherwise) is fit for purpose, merchantable and that you do not make false and misleading statements. There is a chance that a case brought under this sort of law could succeed as you have not limited the purpose, specifically declared that it is not of merchantable quality and have (presumable) said what it does so that, if it doesn't do what you said, you have been misleading and deceptive.
Bartenders and their employers face stiff regulatory penalties (including fines and loss of a license to serve alcohol), and they also face potentially massive lawsuit liability for serving alcohol to someone is who too drunk if the patron later leaves and drives drunk or other harm results (such lawsuits are sometimes called &quot;dramshop actions&quot;). If a bartender serves a &quot;virgin&quot; drink when a regular one is ordered, without the customer's knowledge, this could result in liability for breach of contract (with the damages likely being either a nominal $1 or the difference between the cost of the regular drink and the virgin drink if the customer is charged the higher price). But affirmative defenses of illegality of the proposed contract (when the customers orders an alcoholic drink) might void liability. It could also result in liability for fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment. But again, unless the customer is up-charged for the alcoholic price while getting a less expensive drink, the damages would be nominal (unlikely to exceed $1) and affirmative defenses might apply.
The felon-possession law is Utah Code Ann. §76-10-503, which distinguishes Category I restricted person and Category II restricted person, a complex definitions that distinguish felons in general and violent felons, as defined at Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.5. In the case stricter case, the law says: (2) A Category I restricted person who intentionally or knowingly agrees, consents, offers, or arranges to purchase, transfer, possess, use, or have under the person's custody or control, or who intentionally or knowingly purchases, transfers, possesses, uses, or has under the person's custody or control: (a) any firearm is guilty of a second degree felony; or (b) any dangerous weapon other than a firearm is guilty of a third degree felony. and in the less strict case: (3) A Category II restricted person who intentionally or knowingly purchases, transfers, possesses, uses, or has under the person's custody or control: (a) any firearm is guilty of a third degree felony; or (b) any dangerous weapon other than a firearm is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. The law does not impose any restrictions unrestricted people. A &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; is defined in 76-10-501(6)(a) as &quot;a firearm; or an object that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury&quot;. They add a bit of subjectivity to their definition of &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; (i.e. &quot;we'll decide after the fact if the thing is a dangerous weapon&quot;), because: (b) The following factors are used in determining whether any object, other than a firearm, is a dangerous weapon: (i) the location and circumstances in which the object was used or possessed; (ii) the primary purpose for which the object was made; (iii) the character of the wound, if any, produced by the object's unlawful use; (iv) the manner in which the object was unlawfully used; (v) whether the manner in which the object is used or possessed constitutes a potential imminent threat to public safety; and (vi) the lawful purposes for which the object may be used. The felon could not have a stun gun with the intent to use it as a dangerous weapon, but it is not prohibited for a felon to have one to use on for legal purposes. There are contexts where stun guns are held to be dangerous weapons (United States v. Wallace, 800 F.2d 1509. Some states define stun guns as dangerous weapons, but that is not the case in Utah. It is also illegal for an unrestricted person to &quot;sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any firearm or dangerous weapon to any person, knowing that the recipient is&quot; a restricted person, and in cases of flagrant negligence the court might find that allowing such a person access to a dangerous weapon constituted &quot;transferring&quot; the weapon.
You've already found an answer to the question about theft in the linked answer, that since they do not take the goods, nor even intend to take them away permanently there can be no consideration for theft here. There may be a case of criminal damage though, reading up on CPS website brings up some interesting points, notably: Damage is not defined by the Act and what constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. The damage need not be visible or tangible if it affects the value or performance of the property. It could be argued that by rearranging merchandise in a shop, with clear intent to disrupt its operation you are affecting the performance of the store, and that just may fall under criminal damage. Especially when done regularly, or in an organized way; something that demonstrably affects the business. Though in practice I doubt that anyone, besides the people &quot;hiding&quot; the papers, will care. Shelves in most newspaper stores are inspected and restocked multiple times a day, and as a part of normal customers routine stuff gets moved around and later corrected by staff.
In England and Wales and Scotland, 'licensed premises', i.e. premises authorised to serve alcohol, are obliged to provide free drinking water to customers on request. Unlicensed premises are not obliged to provide drinking water. In England and Wales, all licensed premises &quot;must ensure that free potable water is provided on request to customers where it is reasonably available&quot;. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111116906/schedule?view=plain In Scotland, all licensed premises are obliged to provide &quot;tap water fit for drinking&quot; free to customers on request. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/16/schedule/4/paragraph/8/2005-12-21?view=plain In Northern Ireland there is no law providing for giving customers free water on request. Schools in Great Britain (i.e. not Northern Ireland) are obliged to supply free drinking water. England https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1943/made Scotland https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/153/regulation/7/made Wales https://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2009/3/section/5 All UK workplaces must provide workers an &quot;adequate supply of wholesome drinking water&quot;. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/22/made