cyphertext wrote:
You are correct that a sign is not a "requirement", but it is one method of "effective notice"... and not just any sign, it must meet the requirements per statute. That is what is meant by "effective notice". If they post the sign but in German and French, it is not effective notice. If they post the sign on the ceiling in the hotel lobby, it is not effective notice.
You changed the scenario to meet the statute to make it "effective notice". The law says it must be in English and Spanish... In my example, I said the sign was in French and German, which doesn't meet the requirement and is not "effective notice"... But you made it where the sign was in English and Spanish, plus other languages, making it effective notice. Do you see the difference here?thetexan wrote:Always be careful what you claim is absolutely factual.
A sign with English French Chinese and Spanish meets the stated requirements.
Please show me an example of a sign posted on the ceiling of a hotel lobby that is both conspicuous and clearly visible to the public...thetexan wrote:A sign on the ceiling might very well be conspicuous and clearly visible to the public.
Sticking to the ABSOLUTE common usage and meaning of any statute free from trying to interpret what an appellate court will determine will always produce the best result.
tex
