Must restaurants serve water for free to their customers in France? https://www.economie.gouv.fr/dgccrf/Publications/Vie-pratique/Fiches-pratiques/Carafe-d-eau-verre-d-eau (mirror 1, mirror 2) states: La carafe d'eau ordinaire en accompagnement du repas est inclue dans le prix du repas. The flask of ordinary water accompanying the meal is included in the price of the meal However, as Relaxed mentioned: The page doesn't exactly state that, it says that restaurants cannot charge for tap water, not that they must serve some. Must restaurants serve water for free to their customers in France?
First of all, the site you found is governmental, so a rather good find in the first place. It indicates: Au restaurant, la carafe d'eau ordinaire en accompagnement du repas est inclue dans le prix du repas. En outre, les établissements de restauration et débits de boisson doivent indiquer la possibilité pour les consommateurs de demander de l'eau potable gratuite. In the restaurant, the carafe of plain water to accompany the meal is included in the price of the meal. In addition, catering establishments and drinking establishments must indicate the possibility for consumers to request free drinking water. The relevant law cited in the further article is Order No. 25-268 of June 8, 1967, which was repealed in 2016, but speaks about that such a charge needs to be included in the price. However, a different order concerning the display of prices from 1987/1990 is still active. This specifies in Article 5: Les cartes et menus doivent comporter, pour chaque prestation, le prix ainsi que la mention &quot;boisson comprise&quot; ou &quot;boisson non comprise&quot; et, dans tous les cas, indiquer pour les boissons la nature et la contenance offerte. Cards and menus must include, for each service, the price as well as the mention &quot;drink included&quot; or &quot;drink not included&quot; and, in all cases, indicate for the drinks the nature and the capacity offered. Likewise, an environmental law in the shape of Article L541-15-10 demands the following: A compter du 1er janvier 2022, [...] Les établissements de restauration et débits de boisson sont tenus d'indiquer de manière visible sur leur carte ou sur un espace d'affichage la possibilité pour les consommateurs de demander de l'eau potable gratuite. Ces établissements doivent donner accès à leurs clients à une eau potable fraîche ou tempérée, correspondant à un usage de boisson. From 1 January 2022, [...] Restaurants and drinking establishments are required to indicate in a visible manner on their menu or on a display space the possibility for consumers to request free drinking water. These establishments must give their customers access to fresh or temperate drinking water, corresponding to the use of beverages. Since the latter law actually requires them to give access to free drinking water (which is tap water) on request, they are allowed to not bring it out with the meal, as long as they have the required note that tells about it. However, many restaurants will deliver a flask of it on its own, sometimes even before you order. As a side note: the serving of free water to meals is pretty much a custom in France, even if the waste reduction law of 2022 is very new still and the old law that had mandated it went away in 2016. When I last was in Paris in about 2005, I had to ask for water in one restaurant as they didn't deliver it on their own with the meal, upon which the server asked if I would prefer it chilled or warmed. In none of the about 10 different food places I visited in the week, water or table charges did show up on the bill, very much in accordance with the 1987/90 law. In one restaurant also the slices of baguette served while we choose our meals were off the bill, even though we asked for a refill of those.
I am not from Denver, so it may be different there, but I would think most people would take that to mean the appliance meets UL standards or other safety standards and has been certified. Each governing body, be it a town, county, state, or country, gets to decide who can certify an appliance.
In the second case, is there anything to declare to the taxes? Yes, just like in the scenario of depositing in your bank account. Otherwise it would be easy for everybody to avoid the heavy tax burden by bartering or transacting without the use of official currency. The Code général des impôts in its Article 13 includes in the concept of bénéfice ou revenu imposable the market value of profits and benefits in kind (&quot;y compris la valeur des profits et avantages en nature&quot;).
Quebec has more stringent sweepstakes laws than the rest of Canada: Companies don't exclude residents of Quebec from sweepstakes because they don't want to advertise in Quebec, or because they have anything against the residents of that province. The reason why so many sweepstakes are void in Quebec is that the sponsors must follow a stringent set of laws set out by Quebec's Regie des alcools, des courses et des jeux (RACJ), which governs alcohol, lotteries, contests, gambling, and more. ... For example, in order for sweepstakes with prizes worth more than a certain value to be open to residents of Quebec, the companies sponsoring the sweepstakes must take some or all of the following steps: Register the sweepstakes rules and all advertisements used to promote the contest with the Quebec government at least 30 days ahead of the sweepstakes' launch. Publish the full text of the sweepstakes' rules at least 10 days before the giveaway begins. Pay a fee of up to 10% of the sweepstakes' value, depending on who is allowed to enter. Agree to allow the government of Quebec to mediate any lawsuits arising from the contest. Follow strict guidelines about the contents of the sweepstakes rules. Allow the government of Quebec the right to approve any changes to the giveaway that need to be made once it has started, and to approve canceling the giveaway if it becomes necessary to do so. File a written report after the contest has concluded, attesting that the prizes have been delivered or attempted to be delivered. Agree to let the RACJ mediate any disagreements with the public. File security in the amount of the prize value, to ensure that the prizes are actually awarded. The full set of laws can be found in chapter L-6, r. 6 of Quebec Consolidated Statutes. Note that under Quebec law, a "publicity contest" (concours publicitaire) is a contest, a lottery scheme, a game, a plan or an operation which results in the awarding of a prize, carried on for the object of promoting the commercial interests of the person for whom it is carried on. So even though chance plays a minimal role in the contest you've described, it's still regulated by the stringent requirements of Quebec law. In contrast, in the rest of Canada, promotional contests are governed by Section 74.06 of the (federal) Competition Act. A set of enforcement guidelines can be found on the Competition Bureau's website; they basically require anyone running a contest to: give "adequate and fair disclosure... of the number and approximate value of the prizes, of the area or areas to which they relate and of any fact within the knowledge of the person that affects materially the chances of winning;" not "unduly delay" the distribution of the prizes, and select winners on the basis of skill or on the basis of random chance. [I think this basically bars giving the prize to the boss's nephew.] However, there is nothing about fees, securities, publishing the rules in advance, submitting one's advertising materials to the government, etc. Given the relative ease of running a contest in the rest of Canada compared to Quebec, one can easily see how a company might not find it worthwhile to allow Quebecers to enter and win.
This question is controlled almost entirely by local municipal and county ordinances. It is not a question of federal law that is uniform across the U.S. and in most cases it is not even a question of state law. So, there is no single answer to your question. Most localities regulate this with some combination of hotel specific building codes (usually incorporated by reference from a uniform building code promulgated by a private non-profit organization as a model building code provision) and hotel specific local zoning ordinances.
There have been cases in the UK where paying someone's legal bills was interpreted as joining their case. So when A with no money libels someone, and B with deep pockets pays A's lawyer, then B risks being held liable for damages if A gets convicted. So B should be very careful. Just giving you money is probably the safest. But attorney-client privilege is between attorney and client. I have been laid off twice with my company asking me to take an employment lawyer and paying for it. (Interestingly each time the bill was exactly the maximum amount the company was willing to pay :-) It would have been absurd if my company could demand information that is under attorney-client privilege just because they paid the bill. Why did two companies pay the lawyers bill? Because that way they ensure that the separation is without problems. The lawyer explained the settlement contract and what it meant exactly. They also checked that the contract didn’t contain anything unacceptable which the company would have fixed. So if I had tried to sue them later I would have no chance to win (but there was no reason to sue). Another reason not to sue was that the company offered I settlement that was very significantly more than was legally required, but if you sued them you would only get what you got in court - most likely less than you would get without suing. So basically they paid to make sure I would have no reason to sue them later.
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.
This is from a Canadian point of view, but the rules regarding how corporations run is generally pretty standard. I took a few classes in corporate governance, but I'm working mostly from memory, so hopefully most of the information is accurate! A corporation is its own entity, separate from any shareholders, and it can make whatever policies it wants. Unless you are an officer or on the board of directors, your participation in the company usually will be limited to voting in shareholders' meetings and receiving dividends. Refusal of service is a policy matter, so the fact that you are a shareholder (or anyone else, for that matter!) should be irrelevant. In fact, you might be denied service because you're an officer due to conflicts of interest. If the company was unincorporated, you may have more rights, but you'd probably be subject to some sort of agreement.