Author Topic: can they do that? (Read 370 times)

Lan784 · « **on:** December 24, 2005, 01:47:12 PM »

these are all true stories. I know the answers to all of em except a few. I will post what lawyers say about these l8tr

1. A guy lives about 1 1/2 hours away from San Antonio Texas. The new Harry Potter movie just came out and is showing in San Antonio on a IMAX.
Anyways he thinks it would be fun for his kids to see the Harry Potter movie on IMAX. His Children are 6 years and 9 years. However the movie is rated PG-13, but says its ok to see it with a guardian. He drives down to San Antonio and pays for the tickets and his popcorn and drinks. Just as the movie is about to start the manager walks in and says that his 6 year old daughter is too young to see the movie and tells them to leave right away or the movie wont start.
Can they do that?

2. A guy is driving with his video camera on his dash board to record his driving. Anyways he gets into a fender bender about half way to his destination. He wasnt paying attention and accidently rear ended a guy. Guy B sees the video camera and takes it form Guy A with him because he says he needs it for evidence. Guy A is the person who rear ended Guy B. Guy A says he can't do that however Guy B says its perfectly legal to do it.
Can he do that?

3. Back in 1943 a SBD crashed off the coast of Florida and the US government made no attempt to recorver it. In the 1980s a salvager found the plane and recorved it. A few years later he wanted to sell it off to a museum, however before he did he got a letter from the US goverment saying he can not sale it because the SBD is US property and selling it would be illegal. The US government also stated that he should give it over to the government ASAP. But the salvager wrote back saying that the US government made no attempt to recover its plane and since he found it, it is now his property. The US government said the same thing they said before.

Can they do that?

Hornet33 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 24, 2005, 02:14:30 PM »

Answer to 1.

Yes. A commercial establishment has the right to refuse sevice.

Answer to 2.

No. Guy B does not have the right to take the camera or the tape because it is the personal property of guy A. The police may confiscate the camera and tape as evidence.

Answer to 3.

Yes and No. The SBD in question is government property however it was recovered in a salvage operation by a civilian. The government has the right to demand the property be returned, however they must pay for the salvage operation. If the request for the property to be returned is made the salvage owner must not sell the aircraft untill either the government pays for it or releases ownership.

Shane · « **Reply #2 on:** December 24, 2005, 02:49:58 PM »

1.

welllll.... private businesses can determine who to or not to allow, within certian restrictions, to patronize their business. technically the pg-13 rating, as are all movie ratings (except X - which does carry legality issues for minors), "suggestions" to allow parents an opportunity to consider whether it'd be suitable for their children. While well within their rights to refuse a 6 year old to view the film, it'd probably be bad business.

2. No. Private citizens do not have the right to seize property not belonging to them. Besides, how would B know if it were recording or not. He *could* attempt to acquire it if the case went to court, or rather his lawyer could try to. No guarentees and probably fruitless.

3. Yes, but people are making noises to get this changed for "historical" stuff.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 24, 2005, 03:50:22 PM »

For number one, I believe you guys are wrong.

The theater has the right to refuse service, but not to renig service. Anytime before buying and paying for the tickets, they could have said no.

But they didn't.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #4 on:** December 24, 2005, 04:15:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
For number one, I believe you guys are wrong.

The theater has the right to refuse service, but not to renig service. Anytime before buying and paying for the tickets, they could have said no.

But they didn't.

I think you're right. unless they had a policy posted, the time to refuse service was at the point of purchase on the ticket.

Lan784 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 24, 2005, 04:53:48 PM »

heres the answers:These answers for the first 2 were told by a lawyer

1. No. It is discrimination. They do not have to the right to kick you out if the children were with a adult over the age of 21.

2.No they cannont take what is not theres. However they can with a court order.

3. Yes and No. However this is a very confusing decision. First off the US government made NO ATTEMPt TO RECOVER THE AIRCRAFT. Which means they dont care for it. Then a civilian finds it and recovers it. This is like saying someone lost a 1,000$ and didnt make a attempt to find it. Then a month later a guy finds it and uses it but the other says it still his. It could go either way.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #6 on:** December 24, 2005, 05:02:23 PM »

1.) yes the owner of the theatre can ask the child to leave so long as she is awarded a refund. So long as it isnt a discrimination issue.
2.) Not without a court order.
3.) the US military can do as they wish, and you will like it.

Golfer · « **Reply #7 on:** December 24, 2005, 05:04:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lan784
heres the answers:These answers for the first 2 were told by a lawyer

1. No. It is discrimination. They do not have to the right to kick you out if the children were with a adult over the age of 21.

2.No they cannont what is not theres. However they can with a court order.

3. Yes and No.

#1...BS.

#2...ok

#3...spoken like a lawyer.

texace · « **Reply #8 on:** December 24, 2005, 08:38:01 PM »

1. The tickets were paid for and no attempt was made to stop the minors from viewing the movie. Ratings exist as suggestions to parents as to what they can let their children watch. Minors are able to buy PG-13 tickets without the need of a minor because the ESRB says:

Quote

Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. This signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for pre-teens. Parents should be especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent violence is absent; sexually-oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of drug use may be seen; one use of the harsher sexually derived words may be heard.

The only time a barring of minors is stated is with R ratings:

Quote

Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations). This signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use.

So, while the theater is a private establishment that may deny admission to anyone, there is no "legal" reason as to why considering the rating system. I doubt that any manager, no matter how stringent, would deny the rest of the patrons a chance to see the film because he thinks he's being the better parent.

2: No, the video is private property and Man B has no claim to it regardless of what the video contains. He would need a court order to get the video from Man A. If the police request the video from Man A, he has to surrender it.

3: The aircraft is still U.S. Navy property, regardless of if they dod not attempt to retrieve the aircraft. Legally, the person who salvaged the aircraft has to petition the government to acquire the legal right to the aircraft. If they do not do so, then they are illegally attempting to sell government property. If someone steals my car and drives it into a ditch, but I make no attempt to recover it, the vehicle is still mine even if someone finds the car months later, fixes it, and then tries to sell it. Same principle. The salvager would have to "buy" the aircraft from the government.

Vulcan · « **Reply #9 on:** December 24, 2005, 08:39:57 PM »

#1 - well in NZ if you advertised a service, ie movie showing at said time with a PG rating, and the PG rating doesn't specifically exclude minors then you would be up for a refund and perhaps travel costs.

Lan784 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 24, 2005, 11:12:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by texace

3: The aircraft is still U.S. Navy property, regardless of if they dod not attempt to retrieve the aircraft. Legally, the person who salvaged the aircraft has to petition the government to acquire the legal right to the aircraft. If they do not do so, then they are illegally attempting to sell government property. If someone steals my car and drives it into a ditch, but I make no attempt to recover it, the vehicle is still mine even if someone finds the car months later, fixes it, and then tries to sell it. Same principle. The salvager would have to "buy" the aircraft from the government.

I have to disagree on this part. Its just like lost money after a certain time is its not claimed then who ever found it its theres. In your example if you made no attempt to recover it then that means either you stopped the payment plans on the car or it was paid off, and legally it is his car cause you first off did not made to attempt to recover it and you stopped your payments. After you stop payments ITS NOT YOURS ANYMORE!!! Same with the aircraft. If the government wanted the damn thing they would go get it. So since they didnt get it they didnt want it. So in reality the salvager gets the rightful ownership until the government shows proof that its theres and still have to rights to own it.

texace · « **Reply #11 on:** December 24, 2005, 11:33:15 PM »

If the car is paid off (which in this example, it is) the vehicle would still belong to the owner even if no attempt is made to recover it. In order for the "new" owner to acquire legal rights to the vehicle, they would have to "buy" the vehicle from the original owner.

The government does have legal right to the aircraft, because they're the ones that purchased it in the first place. There is not a "statue of limitations" of sorts on them currently. That is what's being debated in the courts right now. Salvagers of military aircraft have to go through the proper channels to obtain legal rights to the airframe

Shamus · « **Reply #12 on:** December 25, 2005, 02:30:30 AM »

1. They refund the ticket and say "sue me and show damages" in this day and age the lawsuit would be called frivolus.

2. Depends on how big Guy B is.

3. What WhiteHawk said.

shamus