How can German supermarkets get away with not following the EU regulations, which have been established long ago? Since 2011, EU regulations on food labeling states require most foods label's to contain nutritional facts of the food. However, as a person who has been living in Germany for a couple of months, it is quite clear to me that this regulation isn't followed in German supermarkets at all. Very few foods and drinks have their nutritional facts in their labels. Before Germany, I was living in UK, and there, everything had a label containing the nutritional facts of the food. How can Germany, or German supermarket, get away with not following the EU regulations, which have been established long ago?
You are referring to article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 which contains: Article 9 List of mandatory particulars In accordance with Articles 10 to 35 and subject to the exceptions contained in this Chapter, indication of the following particulars shall be mandatory: (...) (l) a nutrition declaration. In a comment you clarify that you are talking about wine. Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 contains: Article 16 Omission of certain mandatory particulars (...) Without prejudice to other Union provisions requiring a list of ingredients or a mandatory nutrition declaration, the particulars referred to in points (b) and (l) of Article 9(1) shall not be mandatory for beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol. As wine contains typically more than 1,2 % alcohol, a nutrition declaration is not required. See also Labelling of alcoholic beverages in the EU: some facts.
You will probably have been presented with a form mentioning "Texas Food Establishment Rules (TFER) Section: §228.35", which requires you to report symptoms and diagnoses which include Salmonella Typhi. That does not guarantee that you actually got such a form or that you remember signing it, but theoretically you did. The regulations are given here and here. The model form includes the information above the signature line "I understand that failure to comply with the terms of this agreement could lead to action by the food establishment or the food regulatory authority that may jeopardize my employment and may involve legal action against me".
A good question that arises from stupid lawmaking. As Wikipedia notes: United States Tyramine is not scheduled at the federal level in the United States and is therefore legal to buy, sell, or possess. Status in Florida Tyramine is a Schedule I controlled substance, categorized as a hallucinogen, making it illegal to buy, sell, or possess in the state of Florida without a license at any purity level or any form whatsoever. The language in the Florida statute says tyramine is illegal in &quot;any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that contains any quantity of [tyramine] or that contains any of [its] salts, isomers, including optical, positional, or geometric isomers, and salts of isomers, if the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation.&quot; This ban is likely the product of lawmakers overly eager to ban substituted phenethylamines, which tyramine is, in the mistaken belief that ring-substituted phenethylamines are hallucinogenic drugs like the 2C series of psychedelic substituted phenethylamines. The further banning of tyramine's optical isomers, positional isomers, or geometric isomers, and salts of isomers where they exist, means that meta-tyramine and phenylethanolamine, a substance found in every living human body, and other common, non-hallucinogenic substances are also illegal to buy, sell, or possess in Florida. Given that tyramine occurs naturally in many foods and drinks (most commonly as a by-product of bacterial fermentation), e.g. wine, cheese, and chocolate, Florida's total ban on the substance may prove difficult to enforce. But lawmakers, in principle, are allowed to pass stupid laws, and an evil-meaning police officer confronting a German citizen with a technically correct interpretation of a duly enacted law, even if it makes no sense, is hardly a fanciful scenario. The mostly likely result would be that a judge would interpret the Controlled Substance designation to apply only to synthetic and meaningfully concentrated version of the chemical in order to avoid absurdity, even if this is not the most plain reading of the statute, in order to reflect legislative intent. Also, while the statute doesn't have an express de minimis exception, one can look by analogy to the fact that no one is prosecuted because the currency they receive as change from a restaurant has trace amounts of cocaine (which 80% of dollar bills in circulation do). Another potential challenge under the federal constitution would be based upon the dormant commerce clause (as in impediment to interstate and international commerce in ordinary trade goods), under a &quot;rational basis test&quot; argument under the Equal Protection Clause (to highlight the lack of any positive reason to enact the law read broadly), or under a &quot;void for vagueness&quot; analysis that assuming the law wasn't intended to have absurd consequences it isn't clear how far it was intended to go. Lack of knowledge that one is in possession of the substance due to lack of advanced chemical knowledge not shared by most members of the legislature would also be a defense in many cases, because many controlled substances offenses require you to have knowledge that you are in possession of a controlled substance.
Have you ever bought groceries? If you have, I’m pretty sure you never signed a contract nor asked the person on the till if they had the authority to enter a contract on behalf of the company. Notwithstanding, a contract is what you had with the grocery company; one that is legally binding on both you and that company. (Most) contracts don’t need to be signed Or, for that matter, be in writing There are exceptions, most notably around real estate or finance, but the overwhelming majority of contracts don’t need a signature or even to be in writing. Many contracts are in writing even when that isn’t legally necessary for all sorts of good reasons but most B2C and even many B2B contracts are verbal or even simply performed - like you buying groceries. Apparent or ostensible authority An agent of a company (including employees) that reasonably appears to have the authority to bind a company to a particular course of action, including agreeing to a contract, has that authority even if they don’t. For example, when you buy your groceries, you can reasonably assume that the cashier has the authority to sell them to you. Unless you know that someone is exceeding their actual authority or it is unreasonable for you to assume the agent is (for example if the cashier tried to sell you the grocery store), then the company cannot avoid their obligations to you. They can, of course, take action against an agent that exceeded authority but that doesn’t let them off the hook for what that agent did. What authority a company gives its agents is up to it A company can only act through its agents. At the top of the tree are the directors and other officers, they have authority only limited by the law and the company’s rules. However, since outsiders don’t know the company’s rules (unless they have been explicitly told), their apparent authority is only limited by law. The directors and officers can delegate authority to employees and other agents however and with whatever restrictions they wish. Such delegation may be explicit or implicit, for example, it’s implicit in a purchasing officer’s role that they can purchase things. However, an outsider is entitled to presume that an employee who acts like they have the company’s authority to do whatever they are doing, does have it.
On the first page of https://www.gov.uk/duty-free-goods/overview you find: "You can bring some goods from abroad without having to pay UK tax or ‘duty’ (customs charges), as long as they’re for your own use." And on the next page "... will use them yourself or give them away as a gift". This clearly doesn't cover anything that you bring into the UK to sell it. And a bit further on the site it says "You must tell customs (known as ‘declaring’) on arrival in the UK if you have goods: ... that you plan to sell". Since you are asking here, it is quite obvious that you intend to sell :-) You said "e.g. say this guys comes every month from Russia to France for unrelated business, each time he fills up his luggage with the maximum allowed amount of goods that comply with custom laws". If this guy sells the stuff to you, then the maximum allowed amount of goods to import without paying taxes is zero. Once he is willing to pay taxes, there is no limit. Obviously regularly importing things from Russia or France and selling in the UK at a profit means that he is running a business in the UK, which means he would have to register a business, pay corporation taxes etc. It's all a matter of degree; for small amounts nobody cares (up to some limit you don't need to register a business or pay taxes; I don't know the details).
Note: IANAL Does the placement of a sticker stating, "We accept XYZ credit cards," essentially obligate a business to accept that card? It depends on whether you mean whether they are obligated to provide goods/services to someone who presents the card, or whether, having provided goods/services, they are obligated to accept the card as payment. For the first question, the answer is "no". The credit card brand could theoretically go after them, however, as names of credit networks are trademarks, so claiming to accept a card but not doing so is trademark infringement. For the second, the answer is "pretty much". Since they misrepresented their establishment, there is no mutual assent and therefore no contract. If they try to use "defrauding the innkeeper statutes", those require fraudulent intent. If you fully intended to pay for you meal by a credit card, and it was their choice to refuse payment, then you have no fraudulent intent. The only avenue I can see for them is some sort of equity argument, but that would be problematic, especially if they ask for the retail, rather than wholesale, price, and not worth the hassle of collecting. So, legally, you can just walk out, but in practice if they have a bouncer they might make trouble for you.
Point three should include "to the best of my knowledge and belief", or be modified to state that none of those "house or the adjacent shop" have informed the affiant of any such delivery, or delivered any such package to the affiant. It might add that the affiant had questioned such persons and they denied receiving such a delivery. The point here, of course, is to prove that the package was never properly delivered, no doubt in support of a claim on the delivery service. The ordinary assumption is that if a person in the "house or the adjacent shop" had accepted a package, it would normally have been given to the addressee at an early opportunity.
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.