INCLUDE SNACK BARS AND DELIS AS RESTAURANTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT.
FOOD SERVICE AND CONVENIENCE TYPE STORES ARE MORE PROBLEMATIC AND DEPEND TO A GREAT EXTENT UPON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SPECIFIC ENTITY CONDUCTS ITS FOOD SERVICE ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC FACTS, I AM EXTREMELY HESITANT TO ISSUE AN OPINION AS TO THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, WHERE ONE OF THESE ENTITIES PREPARES FOOD WHICH MAY BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OR CARRIED AWAY IT WOULD BE, AS TO THAT ACTIVITY, A RESTAURANT FOR PURPOSES OF THE TOURISM PROMOTION ACT.
IN CONCLUSION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR STATUTORY DEFINITION, THE DEFINITION OF RESTAURANT SHOULD BE THAT WHICH IS USED IN THE ORDINARY AND USUAL PARLANCE. GIVEN THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF THE ACT, I.E., TOURISM PROMOTION, THE STATUTORY GUIDANCE, AND THE AVAILABLE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS, IT IS MY OPINION THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED THAT THE TERM RESTAURANT BE BROAD. EVEN WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A BROAD DEFINITION, HOWEVER, THERE ARE PROBLEM AREAS. AT THIS POINT, THERE IS NO "BRIGHT LINE" TEST AND PERHAPS MORE DEFINITIVE LEGISLATION COULD PROVIDE THE NECESSARY TEST.
(DOUGLAS F. PRICE)