Essay #1
Hello my old friend,
I have done some research about your problems and here is my analysis.
The first problem begs the question: “Is Pease In a Pod a fast food restaurant or not?”
If yes, Pease can’t serve alcohol, if no, Pease can serve alcohol. The main point of this problem is the interpretation about table service. We have two ways to interpret Pease In a Pod’s table service, which are presented in the following paragraph. Firstly, we know that Pease in a Pod clearly fulfills the characteristics of a fast food restaurant expect the part about the table service. Government argues that Pease in a Pod is a fast food restaurant because Pease in a Pod does not have a table service. Government interprets Pease’s table service (refilling for drinks) to be counter service, which means that Pease is a fast food restaurant and alcohol regulation applies. Pease’s counter argument should be: “Pease in a Pod is not a fast food restaurant because it offers table service (refilling drinks), and therefore the regulation does not apply.” My suggestion, for you my friend, is that you should appeal about the ABC’s regulation and base your argument in the interpretation of table service. You should argue that refilling drinks is a…show more content… Long arm statute applies if the company fulfills the minimum contacts. In other words, long arm statute applies if the company is doing business within the state, contracting to supply goods or services within the state, or committing a tort (a civil wrong) within the state. So does the company in California fulfill the long arm statute terms? I said yes, because we know that Pease bought its software in Internet, which is open to everyone. Let’s examine this with a logic