Can I sue If I was served a real burger after requesting a veggie burger My husband and I were served a meat burger after requesting a veggie burger. I specifically asked what were the ingredients in the veggie burger. The district manger happened to be in the store, therefore the cashier asked her. She explained and then we ordered. When we began eating the burger it tasted different. I walked up to the cashier and asked was this a veggie burger? He said no. I stated that was what I ordered. He said he would make a new burger. My husband and I complained to the manger. After we left, my daughter who was still in the restaurant reported that they started laughing at my husband and me. My daughter asked why were they laughing, when her parents were in the car sick from eating meat. They stopped laughing. My daughter asked for the corporate headquarters phone number.
Can I sue If I was served a real burger after requesting a veggie burger I agree that this inquiry significantly overlaps with the post of which this one is marked by NuclearWang as possible duplicate. Thus, the answers (such as why breach of contract is inapplicable) and comments provided there largely apply here. I will only address the slight differences. I walked up to the cashier and asked was this a veggie burger? He said no. I stated that it was I ordered. He said he would make a new burger. A claim of fraud would fail in court because you will be unable to prove that the restaurant knowingly misrepresented to you (that is, despite knowing it to be false) that it was serving you a veggie burger with the intention that you would rely on that representation. Two hints indicate that the restaurant didn't act with that fraudulent intention: (1) When asked, the cashier told you that yours was not a veggie burger; and (2) he promptly indicated his intention to mend their mistake by telling you that he would make a new burger. A claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) would also fail. You wrote: After we left, my daughter who was still in the restaurant stated that they started laughing at my husband and I. The fact that the employees waited till you and your husband left reflects that they refrained from intentionally inflicting any emotional distress. A significant factor that will favor them is the fact that they stopped laughing once your daughter asked them why they were laughing: My daughter asked why were they laughing, when her parents were in the car sick from eating meat. They stopped laughing. Even if you genuinely feel disrespected by their subsequent laughter, there are no legal remedies because their laughter insofar an expression was neither obscene nor disparaging nor threatening/harassing. Laughter can be an understandable way, and possibly a psychological need, to relieve the stress from a situation like this in a context of hours of hard work in exchange for low wages with which to pay their bills. Moreover, the same fact [that they waited till you and your husband left] contradicts the allegation that they laughed "at" you. Strictly speaking, the restaurant could viably sue your daughter for defamation if the restaurant incurs any losses (including court-ordered sanctions against the restaurant) as a result of falsely attributing to it the hostile or belittling behavior implied by the particle at. By this I intend to illustrate how certain actions under pretext of extreme "sensitivity" can backfire. People elsewhere are victims of much worse misconduct or offenses that have detrimental effects and long-lasting ramifications. The court system is --if only in theory-- intended to redress wrongs which are more serious than a mistaken order at a burger restaurant.
Yes, it is legal to sell something that uses another product as one of its ingredients. And yes, you can include the name of the product in the ingredients list. That said, if you do it and are successful enough you will probably get a cease and desist letter! The Supreme Court held a long time ago in Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty that a buyer can purchase a trademarked good, repackage it, and then resell it. The defendant of course by virtue of its ownership had a right to compound or change what it bought, to divide either the original or the modified product, and to sell it so divided. The court reminds us that trademarks are not copyrights; they not confer a right to prohibit the use of a word or words. ...unquestionably the defendant has a right to communicate... that the trade-marked product is a constituent in the article now offered as new and changed. In this case the name of the original product was included on the package in non-distinct lettering; stating that the original product was contained in the new product. I mention this because the ultimate decision is fact-specific.* So the Supreme Court tells us that we can repackage trademarked goods. The court also tells us a bit about the label - we cannot call out the trademarked name as this might confuse consumers: If the [trademarked name] were allowed to be printed in different letters from the rest of the inscription dictated by the District Court a casual purchaser might look no further and might be deceived. So, what about that FDA, what do we need on the label? You find this answer in 21 CFR 101.4(b)(2). (b) The name of an ingredient shall be a specific name and not a collective (generic) name, except that: (1) Spices, flavorings, colorings and chemical preservatives shall be declared according to the provisions of §101.22. (2) An ingredient which itself contains two or more ingredients and which has an established common or usual name, conforms to a standard established pursuant to the Meat Inspection or Poultry Products Inspection Acts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or conforms to a definition and standard of identity established pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, shall be designated in the statement of ingredients on the label of such food by either of the following alternatives: (i) By declaring the established common or usual name of the ingredient followed by a parenthetical listing of all ingredients contained therein in descending order of predominance except that, if the ingredient is a food subject to a definition and standard of identity established in subchapter B of this chapter that has specific labeling provisions for optional ingredients, optional ingredients may be declared within the parenthetical listing in accordance with those provisions. (ii) By incorporating into the statement of ingredients in descending order of predominance in the finished food, the common or usual name of every component of the ingredient without listing the ingredient itself. Here is an example of (i): But also note the picture of the box. That Hershey's Kisses trademarked image indicates that there is an agreement between the companies. So only use this image as an example of 21 CFR 101.4(b)(2)(i) ingredients labeling - the box cover is not an example of nominative use. *This is nominative fair use and has been discussed in other questions on this site. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc.: one party may use or refer to the trademark of another if 1) The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark; 2) The user only uses as much of the mark as is necessary for the identification; 3) The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.
Is the question just whether a company can contact its customers to ensure that they're happy with the company's services? If so, the answer is generally yes. I can think of no reason why this would change based on the fact that someone saw her using the services of a competitor. Your mother seems to be treating the phone call as an accusation, but it appears to be standard customer-relationship maintenance. If she chooses to approach it differently, she can use it to improve her bargaining power with Gym 1.
It is any law protecting me from the people that distrubute a video of me falling the stairs and shared without my permision? No. Your permission is not necessary for distributing or watching that video. The recording was from your workplace, where your entitlement to privacy is quite limited unlike few settings such as (1) your attorney's office in the course of obtaining legal advice for which the disclosure was needed, or (2) your home. Even if such an entitlement existed, your decision to share that recording with the person who was with you generally constitutes a waiver of your right to privacy regarding that incident. The waiver would apply even if California had some legislation akin to the EU's GDPR. Your description nowhere indicates that that person had a statutory or equitable duty of confidentiality. It is also highly doubtful that you would wish to block the distribution of the video if people instead of mocking you expressed something pleasant or encouraging to you. people who I don't even know their names come to me to comment about the video and joke about not falling again. That is not unlawful in and of itself. Since the matter does not involve a protected category such as sex, race, religion, or disability, pursuing a claim of hostile work environment would be quite a stretch. It would also be futile because any relief would not cover outsiders who watch the video and feel like joking about it. The notion of harassment entails a pattern of conduct (meaning that a person engages twice or more in that conduct) that causes a reasonable person to feel annoyed or concerned for his safety. Even if someone engages makes a few jokes that cause you to get annoyed, any petition for restraining orders seems unlikely to succeed. Sooner rather than later, the jokes will get old and people will move on.
A business has the right to refuse service, except in the case of unlawful discrimination. &quot;Sued us&quot; is not a protected characteristic. Unless part of the settlement was that the business must serve that customer in future, there is no way this could be considered contempt.
That's the entire point of a summary proceeding. You're allegedly found committing an offence, that isn't worth the court's time to hear but nevertheless requires some penalty. The only way to "unambiguously deny liability" is by requesting a hearing and denying liability in the notice of this. The court doesn't care what you say to everybody else, it cares what you say on its record. The reasoning is, if you're so sure you're not guilty of an offence, why haven't you sought to argue this in court? And if you weren't committing the offence, why did the informant serve the infringement notice in the first place? The act is not silent at all on this. If you don't request the hearing and serve such notice by the date required, you are liable to enforcement action - whether you deny liability out of court is irrelevant.
The simplest solution is to hire an attorney to do this for you. If you want to do it the hard way, you need to try to figure out why your motions were denied. For example, did you file proper motions, or did you just write on a piece of paper "I need all of Walmart's records"? Why do you think that a court will / should supply you with an Open Record (of what)? A real lawsuit is not like Judge Judy where you tell your story and hope the judge has sympathy on your plight. Did the judge say / write anything about why he is denying your requests?
The government guidelines on naming food products states that if an ingredient is different to what consumers expect, it must be made clear by either: including the ingredient as part of the product’s name stating the ingredient close to the product’s name on the label For example, if a pesto sauce has been made with parsley instead of the traditional basil, the product must either be: called ‘parsley pesto sauce’ have the ingredient ‘parsley’ stated next to or directly under the product name So, it seems that the phrases like &quot;our cheese is made of 100% plant ingredients&quot; or &quot;plant based cheese&quot; (without quotation marks or asterisks) are compliant with these conditions. As an aside, the names of 15 cheeses are legally protected, but this relates to their geographical origins - not the product’s actual ingredients.