Anger over ban on beer in litres

August 6, 2008

Anger over ban on beer in litres

BBC reports on the restaurant which is breaking the law by selling Polish beer in litres.

A restaurant owner has described laws which ban him from serving beer by the litre as “barmy” after he was threatened with court action.

Nic Davison was served an infringement notice by trading standards officers for selling beer illegally.

Mr Davison, who owns the Kuchnia Polska restaurant in Doncaster, was told to change his glasses within 28 days or face a court hearing and a £2,000 fine.

The 1988 Weights and Measures Act says draught beer must be sold in pints.

This story illustrates the complex legal environment in which business organisations must operate, and the legal options open to them if they face prosecution.

Photo source.

Advertisements

Loch Fyne pays ‘below minimum wage’

July 25, 2008

BBC reports on how “ethical” fish restaurant pays its staff below the minimum wage, making up the difference with the tips staff earn from customers.

The “ethical” fish restaurant group, Loch Fyne, pays staff salaries below the minimum wage, the BBC has learned.

It relies on customer tips to boost total pay to a lawful level, along with a growing number of restaurants.

Loch Fyne champions marine conservation, and proclaims a corporate philosophy of “an enterprise with respect for animals, people and ecology.”

Loch Fyne pays 'below minimum wage'

What they are doing is not illegal, many consider it unethical.

Like many business organisations there main reason is to keep costs down in a competitive business environment.


Barbie firm wins Bratz court case

July 20, 2008

BBC reports on the winning of a legal case brought by Mattel, the makers of Barbie against MGA Entertainment the makers of the Brtaz dolls.

Mattel has triumphed in a copyright court case against the maker of the popular Bratz dolls, MGA Entertainment.

A California court ruled that the creator of Bratz dolls, Carter Bryant, came up with the idea while he was working for Mattel.

It means that Mattel could be awarded millions of dollars when the jury comes to consider damages.

This case demonstrates the legal recourse that companies may take if they feel their ideas have been stolen.