Posts

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!

Law and Legal Info in the Brief: Act 141, No Resolutions for LLCs, and the HSBA’s PBN Insert on Regulatory Compliance

Hey everyone, today’s Law in the Brief will be really brief!  I got some other interesting information to share as well.

Act 141:  Relating to Small Claims Court; Monetary Limit increased from $3,500 to $5,000

The Hawaii State Legislature was keen on access to justice issues this past session. The big one was ILAF (which I wrote a Civil Beat article urging passage of the bill) and at this past week’s Hawaii State Bar Convention the two attorneys responsible, Mihoko Ito and Gary Slovin, both with the law firm of Goodsill, Anderson, Quinn and Stifel, were recognized with the Ki’e Ki’e Award for their outstanding pro bono work (congratulations).

Anyway, another law making it easier for people to access justice is Act 141. This bill increased the maximum monetary claim that may be filed in small claims court; the prior maximum was $3,500 and with Act 141 it is now $5,000.

This is great for people seeking redress on a smaller level, but had disputes with a monetary value over $3,500.  If you were above that amount you would have to file a claim in another court, which had much higher filing fees. Right now, Small Claims Court has $35.00, whereas Regular Claims it is a $120.00. The advantage of filing in Small Claims as well is that it is typically simple, informal, and the cases resolved more quickly. Many business owners and landlords/property managers use Small Claims Court to resolve problems with damage to or repossession of stolen business property (i.e. shopping carts) and leased or rental properties.

For more information on Small Claims Court click here.

No Resolutions for LLCs

While at the bar convention last week Friday (9/23) I attended both the Corporations and LLC seminars. After all I had just conducted a talk on Business Entity Formation at Hawaii’s first coworking space, The Box Jelly. So I like to keep myself updated, so I can update clients as well. During my seminar, I discussed the difference in terminology between a LLC and Corporation. I also mentioned how important it is to understand those differences. One of the panelists at the LLC seminar proved the point.

Many of the formalities needed in a Corporation, are not needed in a LLC. One of those unneeded formalities are resolutions. The panelist bemoaned how many local bank personnel keep requesting her to draft resolutions for her client LLCs to authorize a loan. Her response, as would be mine to the bank is:

LLCs DO NOT NEED RESOLUTIONS TO AUTHORIZE ACTIONS.

This is one of the things I covered at my talk.  So if you missed my Business Entity Formations seminar not to worry I will be doing one again probably in a month (so Subscribe to this Blawg to find out when).

In the meantime, do not forget to sign up for my next talk on Social Media and the Law this Wed. (9/28) at The Box Jelly, starting 6:00 p.m. It will be $10 for The Box Jelly members and $15 for non-members. Materials are included.

Go to my Facebook page for info and invite. Also I would be happy to do a legal seminar for a gathering of more than 10 people. Contact me for details.

HSBA’s Pacific Business News Road to Regulatory Compliance Insert

Also at the bar convention Pacific Business News was handing out its current issue of (Vol. 49, No. 30). In it (right after the article on Hawaii’s awesome social media stars Toby Tamaye and Melissa Chang!) is the Hawaii State Bar Association’s insert Path to Regulatory Compliance. In it are several brief articles on new laws affecting Hawaii businesses. I recommend checking it out, especially the one on Protecting Gender Expression or Identity in the Workplace on page 11.

You might find that the author and the topic are familiar if you read this blawg regularly.

See you all Friday for Draw the Law wrapping up those worker privacy issues I have been discussing.

*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.