There’s some liability issues with this, you can’t guarantee someone read that and its not as obvious to someone who may be visually impaired. The proper course of action is to disconnect the vending machine.
Legit that’s what my last employer did when a soda machine had a recall on one of the diet sodas.
Just pulled however many quarters from a register, bought all of them, and boxed them up with LOTO tape all over the box. When the guy came in to resupply, he was given the box and pulled the quarters out of the machine and gave them back.
He also left a small stack of reimbursement tags to be left on the machine, fill out what the soda was, what was wrong with it (expired, wrong soda dispensed, etc), and whoever came back would leave the cost taped to the tag with the office to return to the right employee.
I think it’s quite the opposite, a judge would mock you for such a lousy attempt. It’s pathetic, disconnecting the machine is a simple process and it ensures all patrons are safe, not just the ones who notice this tiny sign.
A decent example would be a elderly customer who is visually impaired. They may already frequent this machine and know what buttons they gotta press for their favourite snack. Sure sometimes they get it wrong and something else pops out but that’s ok they aren’t too picky.
But now introduce the danger of one of these options being an actual poison and the seller admitted they are aware they are selling poison among food? The judge would use this sign to make an example of you.
The judge would use this sign to make an example of you.
As they should. It seems like common sense that this sign should be enough and anybody that ignores it “is an idiot that has themselves to blame for the discomfort of food poisoning”. But it’s suddenly a whole different story when your grandma of 82 has died a painful death from severe salmonella infections just because she forgot her reading glasses that day.
The risk of death is tiny but nevertheless an unacceptable risk to assume just so some other people can keep buying their snack for a couple of days instead of shutting down the machine.
There’s some liability issues with this, you can’t guarantee someone read that and its not as obvious to someone who may be visually impaired. The proper course of action is to disconnect the vending machine.
They could also buy all of the offending snacks and get their money back when the vendor comes in
Legit that’s what my last employer did when a soda machine had a recall on one of the diet sodas.
Just pulled however many quarters from a register, bought all of them, and boxed them up with LOTO tape all over the box. When the guy came in to resupply, he was given the box and pulled the quarters out of the machine and gave them back.
He also left a small stack of reimbursement tags to be left on the machine, fill out what the soda was, what was wrong with it (expired, wrong soda dispensed, etc), and whoever came back would leave the cost taped to the tag with the office to return to the right employee.
Law is all about interpretation and what a reasonable person would think.
I don’t think convincing a judge that “it was obvious there was a sign and they would have read it” would be very hard.
I think it’s quite the opposite, a judge would mock you for such a lousy attempt. It’s pathetic, disconnecting the machine is a simple process and it ensures all patrons are safe, not just the ones who notice this tiny sign.
A decent example would be a elderly customer who is visually impaired. They may already frequent this machine and know what buttons they gotta press for their favourite snack. Sure sometimes they get it wrong and something else pops out but that’s ok they aren’t too picky.
But now introduce the danger of one of these options being an actual poison and the seller admitted they are aware they are selling poison among food? The judge would use this sign to make an example of you.
As they should. It seems like common sense that this sign should be enough and anybody that ignores it “is an idiot that has themselves to blame for the discomfort of food poisoning”. But it’s suddenly a whole different story when your grandma of 82 has died a painful death from severe salmonella infections just because she forgot her reading glasses that day.
The risk of death is tiny but nevertheless an unacceptable risk to assume just so some other people can keep buying their snack for a couple of days instead of shutting down the machine.