I really am interested in the technicalities of this law.
I will fully accept that in your state the law can be like that, but I'm
exploring the wording. Some of these laws (like many of the old American ones)
have an interesting history and it's funny to see how parts of it may have
been overtaken by custom or convention.
Just this week we were discussing how the laws against 'marrying' bottles are
a too-zealous reading of an impractical law.
As you can tell, I feel a your crusade is a similar case, but don't feel bad,
at least you're not promoting the AZBar system ;)
> > OK, so given the wording in that fact sheet, you cannot legally use a
> > pourer in your bottle in conjunction with a jigger.
> ...
> already obeying the letter of the law by having approved pourers on
> all my bottles...
OK, it's quite possible to obey that law, by as you say, having approved
pourers. Fine.
My observation is that commonly used 'speed' pourers such as the classic
"Spill Stop #285-50" are certainly not approved measured pourers, and as such
cannot be used to dispense into a jigger. That would be illegal.
Now I'm not claiming that this ridiculous claim was the intent of the law,
but it is certainly a valid reading of it.
I think that having both measured pourers AND a jigger is awkward, but if it
works for you ... as I said in my first post, that's your perogative.
Me, I physically snapped the ball-bearings off all the pourers at work in the
first month, seeing as we were using jiggers anyway.
I guess that would have been illegal where you are, yup, but I don't think
they were government-stamped ones in the first case. I DO know that they were
stupidly inaccurate at speed.
> a more current act as the one u were looking at is the 1960 version
Oh. The links I followed said 1989/1990
http://www.measurement.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=C4AC81E7-BCD6-81AC-17CA2264F812D6D6
> (1) If an article is sold at a price determined by
> reference to measurement of the article ...
Good references, thanks.
> So basically what this means is if u r selling an certain amount of
> alcohol for a specific price you must measure it in the presence of
> the purchaser.
OK, this has interesting implications for table service at restaurants then,
right?
Either being brought a vodka orange at the table is illegal, or it's not
regarded as being sold by volume. Same even for whiskey neat.
Yes, there are indeed states in which they are required to bring you a
sealed mini-bar bottle of spirits in that situation. I didn't think Australia
was like that, but if that's your reading of the law...
Me, I favour the latter, laxer interpretation.
> 23. Incorrect measurement or price calculation
... etc, yeah, lots of it is about not falsifying the measurement. Fair
enough..
> So, while it doesnt specifically say "you cant free pour alcohol" it
> basically says if u are going to sell an amount of alcohol for that
> price it must be that quantity. if its not, u r breaking the law.
Yeah, and you see the nice loophole there?
> the act also states that its purposer is to
> (d) require beer and certain other alcoholic
> beverages to be sold at a price determined by
> reference to volume and provide the
> measurements to be used
Good, this is the bit that should provide the full picture...
... but just again says that if you measure it, you should measure it right.
Great.
Where was the bit that said you have to serve 30ml?
If you ask for a shot of vodka, and the shot glass I serve it in is not full,
you can complain. I'd agree.
If I order a "pint" of beer from you, and you instead serve me 14oz, or 500ml,
OK, you're breaking the law. The law is pretty clear on that then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_beer#Beer_Glasses
If you ask me for a Bourbon & Coke, and I serve 15, 30 or 45ml, where does the
law stand?
If I declare it's 30ml bourbon and 180ml Coke as I pass it over, and I'm
significantly wrong, OK, take my license. If I make no such claim, and neither
does any visible measurement tool I used, I don't think there's much of a case.
And that shot glass, how big was it? was it 25,30 ml, or was it an ounce? Was
it 45ml or even two ounces? I've seen them all in use.
As long as it was full or it was up to the marked measure (and the measure
was correct, whatever it said), I don't actually see the problem in relation
to that law. Using smaller glasses is an old trick. As long as they are
unmarked, there is no (technical) deception.
That bit where it declares the intent of the law is to require (certain)
spirits to be sold as a measured volume almost clinched it.
It's that type of law that is crippling the bartenders in Pensilvania (sp) or
wherever who can't legally make cocktails using proportions of any less than
full 1oz measures.
It's the laws like that, declaring that it's the exact amount of alcohol
volume in the drink that directly determine the price that gave us the tills I
worked with in the UK, where a Rum & Coke was 16p different from a Bacardi &
Coke, where a Black Russian was calculated as 28.5ml Vodka @ 1.60 and 16.75ml
Kahlua @ 2.75.
- Because that's what the letter of that law required - that the charge be
made calculated directly to the volume.
Actual cocktail bars (and clubs) have had to dispense with that formality,
rounding their prices to make sense. Were that interpretation of the law in
effect here, my "big pour" promotion where I serve 45ml instead of 30 ml for
only a 30% price upsell would be illegal, as I'm no longer charging by
measured volume.
I believe that a few of these laws are outdated, ignored, or just plain
irrelevant. I also believe that we should serve the correct measure
expected, and that the normal acceptable amount for a highball of lowball in
this part of the world is an even 30 ml. But in my scans of (my) licensing
laws I could never find it say either 30 ml or 1 oz ANYWHERE.
I also of course agree that your bartenders better damn well be accurate
whatever they are doing. If they are demonstrably not, kick butt.
Maybe, just maybe, considering the different views on this may set you up even
better for the arguments you are planning to have with your staff ;)
.dan.