,

Communicating With Your Business Partners

communicating in contracts

A New Year, A New Business, And A New Of Hope Of Communication:

Part I, Communicating With Your Business Partners

Aloha and Hau’oli Makahiki Hou!

I hope this finds you all well, and I thank you for visiting our legal blog or blawg. How has your first week of 2017? Ready to dive into new projects?  For those of you thinking this is the year or the time to start a business, well then today’s post and the couple of posts that will follow are for you. Specifically for those of you interested in starting a business, especially with business partners who will own the business with you. The overall theme of these posts is about communicating.  I was inspired about this theme as this partnership with Trejur launched last year, I teach a Communications class at HPU, and I always get this question: Can my business partner do that?

Read more

“Taxes Are the Price We Pay for a Civilized Society.”

*I posted this to my Facebook yesterday for the Federal income tax return deadline, and forgot to put it to my blawg! To busy dealing with my taxes and clients’ transactional issues during this hectic tax period.  Anyway, a little less relevant today, but remember 2015 Hawaii income tax returns or requests for extension are due tomorrow (4/20/16), so still slightly relevant. Cheers and good luck to you! 

I hope your Monday, this final day for submitting your U.S. federal income tax returns (at least without an extension), is not that stressful, but I share this interesting quote with you by one of my favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justices from the past, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He was a great jurist and in his time was known as the I hope your Monday, this final day for submitting your U.S. federal income tax returns (at least without an extension), is not that stressful, but I share this interesting quote with you by one of my favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justices from the past, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He was a great jurist and in his time was known as the “Great Dissenter”. I selected this quote, as apparently this quote appears on the IRS building in Washington D.C. So with that, I wish good luck on your taxes, as I do empathize with all of you, especially fellow self-employed small business owners! Anyway, if you are interested, you can find a nice short biographical history for Justice Holmes here: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/robes_holmes.html

,

Can You Own a Monkey in Hawaii?

Happy Lunar New Year! It is the year of the Fire Monkey! Supposedly, fortune tellers say it is an ear of market volatility, so it is best to make contingency plans and not monkey around! However, enough punning, this post is about owning a monkey in Hawaii.

*Disclaimer:  This post discusses general legal issues, but does not constitute legal advice in any respect.  No reader should act or refrain from acting based on information contained herein without seeking the advice of counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.  Further, no tax advice is given in this post, and you are urged to seek a tax attorney, accountant, and/or tax professional to help you with your tax and accounting needs. Ryan K. Hew, Attorney At Law, LLLC expressly disclaims all liability in respect to any actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this post.

Happy Lunar New Year!

I hope it shall be a prosperous one for you! To celebrate that this is the year of the Fire Monkey, I decided to do a fun post,  as I am born in the year of the monkey (I am sure you can now guess my age, haha). So for this post, I thought a fun question to answer is one that that comes up and now and then among pet-loving friends: “Can I own a monkey, here in Hawaii?”

The answer is: yes, but . . . 

Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Importation of Animals

As you probably could guess this is a regulated area. So it is not as easy as in you can fly in any monkey you want, then take it home, especially given that Hawaii laws are aimed at preserving nature and preventing invasive species.  Obviously, monkeys are non-native species to the island, so you are you going to have to import one and play by the rules. So none of that “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” shenanigans with the government agents.

To begin with, the importation of non-domestic animals is under the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. See HRS 150A-6.2.  Some animals are banned outright, while others are allowable by permit. Monkey importation is allowable by permit but has an extra step. That step being bonding.

I had to use this image for this post. It is a monkey in a suit at a desk with paperwork. I know what people think of attorneys. Further, I think it was apt for this post. Lastly, I paid licensing fees for the image and had to make use of it (don't worry one post I will devote to licensing fees for you graphic designers, photographers, etc . . . but enjoy and laugh! I had to use this image for this post. It is a monkey in a suit at a desk with paperwork. I know what people think of attorneys. Further, I think it was apt for this post. Lastly, I paid licensing fees for the image and had to make use of it (don’t worry one post I will devote to licensing fees for you graphic designers, photographers, etc . . . however, enjoy and laugh!

 

Hawaii Administrative Rules Chapter 4-71 and Bonding

We turn to the Department of Agriculture’s Administrative Rules, in particular, Chapter 4-71, as the objective of these rules are to implement HRS Chapter 150A. See HAR 4-71-1.  So what do the specific rules say about monkeys?

If we go to HAR 4-71-6.5, we see that we would need a permit, but more specifically we see in Section (a)(3) that certain animals need the securing of a bond, as specified in 4-71-7.  Scurrying down to HAR 4-71-7(1) it indicates that an applicant (for the permit) shall secure the appropriate bond for:

Monkeys, apes, baboons, chimpanzees, gibbons, lemurs, pottos, wallabies, and any other animal that the board or chairperson may require to be bonded as a condition for importation or possession;

Bonding Procedure and Conditions for Bonding

So how do you get a bond, and are there specific requirements? Well, the Administrative Rules continue from 4-71-7 to 4-71-8, Bonding Procedure and 4-71-9, Conditions for Bonding.  In these two sections, you will see much of the specifics you would need to fulfill to get a bond, which would go with the permit, which would, in turn, allow you to own a monkey.

Of course, even if you meet these requirements, and successfully import and own a monkey, you have to realize you have to comply with all the bond conditions. Failure to do so would mean the Department could seize it, as given their power under HAR 4-7-10.  Interestingly enough, if your monkey were to escape it is your responsibility to recapture it, and you have a week to do so, or else the Department will use its resources to recapture. Additionally, they can sell, ship, donate, or destroy it.  See HAR 4-71-10.

So yes, you can own a monkey here in Hawaii, but it is not a process of monkey see, monkey do like with dogs or cats, but a Department of Agriculture procedure of permitting and bonding.

Mahalo for reading!

-RKH

 

Shopping Carts in Hawaii! What’s the Law?

 

*Disclaimer:  This post discusses general legal issues, but does not constitute legal advice in any respect.  No reader should act or refrain from acting based on information contained herein without seeking the advice of counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.  Ryan K. Hew, Attorney At Law, LLLC expressly disclaims all liability in respect to any actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this post.

Today’s Post is Not About Sledgehammer Time: It’s Only Focused on the Shopping Cart Law

Hey all, I decided to jump on the bandwagon (may be the shopping cart?) and talk about shopping carts.  However, I am not going to get into whether Rep. Brower’s actions exposes him to civil or criminal liabilities or if they were right or wrong.  I think Civil Beat, attorney Marcus Landsberg, and the news outlet and social media has already beaten that cart into disrepair (yeah, I am going to keep trying to hammer away with the lame jokes and puns).

Anyway, what I would like to do is take a look at this matter from a business establishment perspective (those that put out the carts) and what the legislature has put forth as a law on point (looking at what is on the books.  It turns out that we have enacted a law specifically for shopping carts.  HRS § 633-16 discusses the unauthorized removal of shopping carts.  Further, as it is in Chapter 633, it puts this matter in small claims court.  

Breaking Down the Law

So looking at the law, as currently stated, it makes it a violation for a person to remove a shopping cart (including baskets and other devices) from the premises of business establishment (that owns the cart), if they are unauthorized.  The premises include the parking lot as well as the sidewalks adjacent to the business establishment’s premises.

The business establishment is the person who has the ability to bring a claim under this law if there is damage to the business or property.  The business may sue for damages and win an award equal to the replacement value of the cart (and keep in mind the average cost of a cart ranges from $100 – 250), basket, or device plus the cost of the suit.  The establishment can also sue to enjoin the unauthorized act.

So in order for a business to win in small claims court (under this law) the must nail down these elements: 

  1. they are the lawful owner of the cart, which has been identified;
  2. they gave notice, which means posting a conspicuous sign where the carts are stored that says the carts are not to be removed;
  3. that the cart was removed from the business location without proper authority; and
  4. the person accused of violating this law is in possession or had control of the cart.

Practicalities of the Law

In terms of policymaking it is understandable why the legislature gave such a legal action for business owners of these carts (as they are expensive).  However, in terms of reality is if these carts are being taken by people who are unable to pay the damages or the business cannot track them down its effectiveness as a law should be looked into.  In addition, how many shopping cart owners utilize this law for these purposes? All I know at this point though is that the bang of the gavel in your favor is a better sound than a squeaky cart on uneven pavement!

A Final Word

Although this post was focused on shopping carts, business owners for any type of legal action should always consider the cost of pursuing claims in court versus that of implementing practical solutions (where possible), or possibly a combination of legal and practical action, such as drafting contracts, policies, procedures, and other preventative measures.  Anyway, that’s it for this post.  Mahalo!