Bernal told police she purchased the Jell-O shots from a sweet shop run out of a private home. The owner of the business told police the treats contained vodka but thought Bernal had intentionally purchased alcoholic shots.
The owner showed police a screenshot of text messages between them and Bernal showing the woman inquiring about whether the shots contained alcohol. The owner replied that they did and asked why, to which Bernal replied “kids”.
To the question of whether they contain alcohol, the one word “yes” is all that’s needed.
As a seller, I probably wouldn’t have given them to her without clarification, but I don’t think the seller is legally responsible here. (At least for that; I doubt they have a license to sell jello shots at all.)
Bernal told police she purchased the Jell-O shots from a sweet shop run out of a private home. The owner of the business told police the treats contained vodka but thought Bernal had intentionally purchased alcoholic shots.
The owner showed police a screenshot of text messages between them and Bernal showing the woman inquiring about whether the shots contained alcohol. The owner replied that they did and asked why, to which Bernal replied “kids”.
So miscommunication it seems?
More like terrible communication. A one word answer? My opinion is this deserves a more thoughtful response.
To the question of whether they contain alcohol, the one word “yes” is all that’s needed.
As a seller, I probably wouldn’t have given them to her without clarification, but I don’t think the seller is legally responsible here. (At least for that; I doubt they have a license to sell jello shots at all.)
Agreed. “Yes.” is the required answer.
The seller is not liable in the slightest.
Jell-O-shots always contain alcohol. The whole thing stinks of stupid from the start.
kids
I don’t disagree.