Putting up a &quot;we&#39;re closing!&quot; sign illegal? There's a store near our home that has the "We're closing! Everything must go! Huge discounts!" Sign. It has been on their store for at least 6 months. Is it fraudulent or illegal to make such an advertisement when the store has no plans to close?
The jurisdiction does matter. Generally, at the national level, the Federal Trade Commission prohibits deceptive advertising. From the FTC's website, &quot;Advertising FAQ's: A Guide for Small Business:&quot; When can a company advertise a &quot;going out of business sale&quot;? The short answer is: only when a store is going out of business. It would be deceptive to advertise a “going out of business sale” when a store is not going out of business. If a store in your area is advertising what looks to be a bogus “going out of business sale,” contact your state Attorney General’s office. In their answer, they specify to contact your state Attorney General's office. Many states and localities have specific statutes that regulate &quot;going out of business sales.&quot; San Diego, California, for example, requires a permit from the San Diego Police Department whenever a business has a &quot;closing-out sale.&quot; Their permit application indicates a list of the types of sales that are subject to the ordinance and closes with: Or, any other term tending to convey to the public that upon the disposal of the stocks of goods on hand, the business will cease and be discontinued. The permit in San Diego is valid for 60 days and the business is required to provide an inventory of all goods that will be sold as part of the liquidation sale. The requirements of the city of San Diego are similar to many other jurisdictions. Some of these requirements are specified at the state level, such as Texas (Business &amp; Commerce Code Section 17.45 Deceptive Trade Practices), while other states leave it to the localities. California doesn't appear to have a statewide &quot;going out of business sale&quot; law but they do have other laws and regulations governing false advertising. California Business and Profession Code section 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading advertising. The California Bureau of Home Furnishings has promulgated regulations based on this statute to prohibit such sales to only include items that are on premises, in the warehouse or in process from previous orders the date the sale is announced This regulation for furniture retailers in California is common among the &quot;going out of business sale&quot; regulations in that it prohibits the closing business from purchasing new merchandise while liquidating and is one of the reasons that inventory lists are required when applying for a permit for a liquidation sale. As a side note, I was always amused by a store on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco that had a &quot;Going Out For Business&quot; sign in their store window. I probably read it a hundred times over the years before I realized what it really said.
The rule you are alluding to with respect to a television set is called the "first sale doctrine" which basically prohibits copyright and trademark owners from limiting the ability of a buyer of a good (like a CD or authorized logo T-Shirt) protected by copyright or trademark, from limiting further sales of that good (or the manner in which the good is used by its new owner) after a first retail sale of the good with copyright or trademark protections. This doctrine was derived from an old common law rule that invalidated "restraints on alienation" of property other than intellectual property on public policy grounds, and like the "restrain on alienation" rule for tangible property, the first sale doctrine that applies to intellectual property was also (at least originally) a court created common law rule. But Minecraft isn't, conceptually, a good. It is a continuing service provided over the Internet, and firms that provide continuing services on a licensed basis, as Minecraft does, can impose terms of service (a.k.a. an "end user license agreement" a.k.a. EULA) which must be complied with in order for users to be allowed to continue to utilize the service. So, its prohibition on exchanges of things of real world value for things of game value, except as the terms of service authorize, is permitted. A user of Minecraft is more analogous legally to someone skating at an ice rink than to someone who buys a CD or book. If you buy a ticket to skate at an ice rink, the people granting you the license to use the ice rink have the right to set rules governing how you utilize that service, and to terminate your license if you don't follow the rules (e.g. by skating in the wrong direction at the wrong time). Indeed, a ticket to an event is also known in legal parlance as a form of "license" just like a EULA, and licenses to use real property are the origin of the body of law that now governs the licensing of intangible intellectual property. A Minecraft license isn't something that you own (even if you have a license of unlimited duration), it is a qualified and limited right to use something that someone else owns, that you aren't allowed to purchase, but you are allowed to use on the owner's terms. How can they enforce servers to follow that rule if the server's are not using Mojang's proprietary software. The EULA or TOS obligation in the Minecraft business model is enforceable because Minecraft isn't in the business of selling proprietary software, even though it does do that. Minecraft is in the business of licensing access to data and online resources. The EULA regulates your access to the data on servers, and the computing power of those servers, not your ownership of an app which facilitates your use of the licensed services. And, while there are various contractual remedies for violating a EULA, the most basic one is a self-help remedy: to cut you off from your ability to use the service if you violate the owner's rules. Indeed, at least heuristically, the easiest way to distinguish an intellectual property good, which is subject to the first sale doctrine, from an intellectual property service, which can be licensed pursuant to a EULA, is whether, as a practical matter, the firm distributing the intellectual property has a practical ability to deny you service going forward without resort to the courts. If the owner of the intellectual property has no practical ability to do that, the intellectual property being distributed will probably be classified as a good and be subject to the first sale doctrine. But, if the owner of the intellectual property has the practical ability to cut you off from the intellectual property being distributed without resort to the courts, the intellectual property being distributed will probably be classified as a service, which is not subject to the first sale doctrine and may be licensed.
I assume the lease does not clarify what the effective date for cancellation of utilities should be: when you "officially abandon" the property, or when the 30-day notice elapses. Who is responsible for the damage? At least under a principle of equity, the landlord is responsible for the damages. That is because, once you have returned the keys and officially abandoned the property, you have no control on how or whether utilities are consumed or (ab-)used thereafter. For instance, if sometime after the 30th of July a person breaks in that rental unit and extracts tremendous quantities of power or gas, that would lead to the inequitable outcome that the utilities company would charge you if your name is still in the utilities company's records. Similarly, it would be unreasonable and inequitable to expect you to essentially insure the landlord (by keeping your name on the utilities) despite his full awareness that you no longer are there.
Dale has the right answer, but I'd like to elaborate on why it isn't lawful (as compared to why it would be unlawful). I know it doesn't work that way on line, but it's simpler to think of a credit card as a physical piece of plastic. The bank will have issued this to their customer. It will have a number and an expiry date. You have no way of knowing whether a replacement card has been issued. Even if one has, the customer has authorised you to charge a specific card - you do not have the customer's authorisation to charge a different card with a different expiry date. By guessing the expiry date, you would be making a representation to the bank that the customer has authorised you to charge that card (if it exists), when they have not.
I found an example of "is illegal" in RCW 78.52.467: "If the department believes that any oil, gas, or product is illegal...". There are some examples of "shall be illegal", e.g. RCW 39.84.050 "It shall be illegal for a director, officer, agent", where "illegal" is used predicatively. I tenatively conclude than the latter kind of use is less frequent that the adjectival use. Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Pocket ed does not include "illegal" except in some "illegal"+noun constructions, but it does list "unlawful" alone. "Unlawful" has been used since 1387 (J. Trevisa translation of Ranulf Higden Polychronicon), whereas "illegal" only goes back to 1626. Legal language tends to be very conservative, so the fact that "unlawful" got there first (aided no doubt by the fact that it is an Anglo-Saxon construction, not a medieval Latin borrowing) gives the term priority in legal usage. It sounds more legal to say "(un)lawful" that "(il)legal".
No If you breach the contract that may allow the rental company to terminate it (among other things), however, termination would need to be communicated to the customer. Only if they kept it after that, with the intention of permanently depriving the company of it, are they stealing it.
Can't park within 30 ft of a stop sign. Tex Tn Code 545.302 b4. If this is the law they don't need to post a sign. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/TN/7/C/545/G/545.302
From what I can see on the USPTO registry, &quot;tweet&quot; is still not trademarked for the purposes you're talking about. Twitter has been working to secure that trademark, but I can't find any record of them having actually secured it. Just the same, I'd predict that using it will get you at least a cease-and-desist letter, and possibly a lawsuit. Whether you'd win that case seems to be a very open question, but that presumes you have the resources to litigate.