Di_in_AZ

Ha, I went to high school at Lakenheath. Good memories

No Angela, it isn't misleading. I said a person COULD be personally liable (which they can) and when they would be liable. The specifics are here in this post:

"This is a description of the LLC (posted below), notice if you do something illegal, unethical or irresponsible (i.e. make a defective candle)--you ARE personally liable and the protection afforded by the LLC no longer exists. That is what I was referring to when I said that you CAN be held personally liable, to say you cannot is lulling yourself into a false sense of security."

You are telling me that you have been clearly stating in your posts that there is a chance of personal liability. I was posting in regards to this specific post--which makes it seem to the reader that if they go LLC, they are free and clear:

"Being a sole prop means that you are personally liable. If the amount of insurance you have isn't enough to cover the judgment against you, your assets are at risk. The risk is rather low because there are not many cases where chandlers are sued, but there is still a risk. Having an LLC with liability insurance means that even if the insurance doesn't cover the entire amount of the judgment against you, you personally are not liable for the debts of the LLC. Make sense?"

That is exactly what I was replying to. No where in that post is there mentioned that you could be personally liable. I said that you could be held liable, which is true. This is black and white and really not worth carrying on about. I did not miscontrue your posts, it is there and is says there is no personal liability. Pointless to continue this don't you think? At this time you are miscontruing my posts by saying that I was saying that my response was a blanket response.

Angela, why did you quote my post in the first place? If you agree, why do you keep reposting the same? If you were disagreeing, I could see your point. I am sorry but I don't--unless you are solely posting to try and "upstage" my answer. Perhaps you should take this to a law message board and try to impress them there. It is not working with me because you haven't said anything that I didn't, except you are putting it in "legal jargon". I see you just rolled out of law school, I wish you luck but trying to talk down to people will get you no where fast. :rolleyes2

Wow, how funny. From reading the above posts, once I said there was personal liability, you quoted me and your first line is:

"There is always liability, but with an LLC, the owner/director is not personally liable."

It didn't sound like you were agreeing at all. If you were trying to clarify or you were agreeing, I wouldn't think you wouldn't be using the word "but". I know as a lawyer, you can understand how easily words are played on.

I have quite a few law courses under my belt and understand that each state is different, I posted from nolo because it is in laymen's terms and it would have been a waste of bandwidth to have posted individual state laws regarding LLCs.

Bottom line, as I said before, it is misleading to say there is NO personal liability. Thanks for agreeing.

P.S. Editing to let you know I did see that you edited to add that you completed law school and the bar exam! Congrats!

There is always liability, but with an LLC, the owner/director is not personally liable. You may be sued in your capacity as a director or shareholder, but not personally. The only way that you can be held personally liable is if you fail to keep the proper corporate formalities or breach a duty of loyalty or care.

This is a description of the LLC (posted below), notice if you do something illegal, unethical or irresponsible (i.e. make a defective candle)--you ARE personally liable and the protection afforded by the LLC no longer exists. That is what I was referring to when I said that you CAN be held personally liable, to say you cannot is lulling yourself into a false sense of security.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/ED01121A-B4BF-498A-8BC0DBD121A0C869/catID/5DE04E60-45BB-4108-8D757E247F35B8AB/111/182/FAQ/

Like owners of a corporation, however, all LLC owners are protected from personal liability for business debts and claims -- a feature known as "limited liability." This means that if the business owes money or faces a lawsuit for some other reason, only the assets of the business itself are at risk. Creditors usually can't reach the personal assets of the LLC owners, such as a house or car. (Both LLC owners and corporate shareholders can lose this protection by acting illegally, unethically, or irresponsibly.)

I have to put in my two cents here.

LLC means just that, LIMITED Liability--there is STILL liability and you can STILL be personally sued by someone. A person can sue a company and sue the owner. That is the first thing I learned from the SBDC--you should find your local one they are usually at community colleges. They will be able to explain it to you. You need to research this because this is a very common misconception and gives people a false sense of security.

If you do a search on any engine for self extinguishing candle, there are many claims for this out there already.

LOL

I go through a similar thing, but get this--I have people who don't buy from me say this:

I am going to give you a jar and the money for the wax and the FO you use so you can make me a candle

I always tell them sorry I can't because this is my business and I have too many other expenses to cover and that would cost me too much if I did business that way.

Then the same people (ones I work with) expect a free candle from me on their birthday. I give several women I work with a free candle on their birthdays because they buy from me constantly and get me a lot of customers through references. I feel that is my way of thanking them. Then the other people who don't buy from me feel they should be getting them on their birthday as well. I just ignore those requests.

Those people are just out for freebies. I also like the requests for free samples. I tell them that Walmart doesn't usually hand out free samples of their candles and they could well afford to compared to me.

The show I do you get your money back minus $10.

I give out the same advice, soy or paraffin--if you have allerigies, or worse yet, asthma, don't burn candles period. Even worse, scented candles.

I had a lady call me and tell me that she is so allergic she never burns candles and she burns mine and she is fine. She wanted to thank me for making candles like that. I was honest and told her I have no idea why that was because I scented at the levels the wax could hold and didn't do anything to make them "hypoallergenic"; however, I was glad she liked them and tolerated them.

I had a lady telling me in my stall how she burns soy candles because her daughter has asthma so bad. I just looked at her and asked her why she would do that. She left.

I don't care what candle you make, candles are NOT for breathing ailments.

I must say I was suprised and disappointed to see that you're one of those folks who uses overblown claims and paraffin bashing to sell soy candles. I didn't think you were the sort to go in for that BS. Do you think it's professional for a supplier with paraffin using customers to have the sort of content up that I saw on your nothingbutcandles.com site? Do you actually believe that paraffin emits toxic fumes, and that we import oil to make candle wax, and that you sell "healthy candles"?

That site contains some untruths. The EPA has not stated that there are "significant" levels of toxins in paraffin candles. Most have been equated to an amount less than was present in one cigarette compared to the content in a room where 30 candles were burned for three hours. That is not significant.

It is untrue and alot of miscontruing the soy/paraffin products is silly. Most of the toxins found to burn in paraffin came from the fragrance oils--which are also in soy candles. The worst thing you can tell an asthmatic is that burning a soy candle is good. They are still exposed to the fragrance oils which are toxic. People need to start getting on a healthy kick campaign against the FO industry--there's your toxins!

What blows my mind is these people who smoke, have heaters in the homes, drive cars and get exposed to tons of toxins and soots, and they worry about a candle that has less than a cigarette. Marketing ploy? I think so.

The facts on this were posted on another thread regarding the EPA in the business section.

I make a tart of each scent I have, put it in the foil holders with a label with the name underneath. Then customers can pick up and sniff, see the name underneath. Keeps my jars intact and stops people from poking fingers in candles, which I have had several do :rolleyes2 . Great when kids are around as well, they like to smell them and I don't have to worry about breakage.

Have you thought about using a local landmark, or skyline? That is what came to my mind when I saw your name, I use to live in Jacksonville for four years. I always think of the old state capitol because we had field trips there when I was a kid--long before Bill came along. You could use his head for your logo! JK

Now I am reminiscing, do you know of a place there where it used to be historic buildings? They showed how people used to live years ago, you could make the handmade taper candles why you were there, lots of looms and thinks like that? I remember going there several times but I cannot remember what the place was.

Walmart has them in the crafts department, www.candlesandsupplies.com has some.

Candlewitch, getting just a wee bit tired of you following me around and stirring. The fact you do it on several boards is sort of scary. It is called stalking. Please stop. It really is sick and I am tired of your insinuations.

You are the only one on this board trying to get a division between soy and paraffin users. Stop already and quit telling lies. It is very unbecoming of you.

I don't think it is acceptable at all. I just brought this up on another thread. Legally there must be a loophole on advertising claims. Why is it that companies claim a pill can make you thin or increase your bust size? We all know there are no magic pills but companies still claim to. There will always be outrageous sales claims and actually it is more down to the actual wording that allows them to do it. Whether it is considered acceptable, well that is down to the consumer, a matter of personal opinion.

Thanks, keep fingers crossed--it would be nice if they really got it off the ground. Cheers, Di

If you wick a candle properly and the customer burns it properly, there isn't a soot problem period. You are assuming that every paraffin candle burns badly, they don't. I am surprised that being a soymaker Candlewitch that you were not aware that soy candles let off white soot.

The EPA test shows quite clearly that paraffin is a safe wax to burn. I did not come here to show any negatives about soy so I don't exactly understand what your point is. I don't need to scare people into buying my products. I merely showed that the negatives people claim about paraffin are false. Why would I post a soy test?

Try a search on google. I just looked for tests on paraffin because I wanted to know the truth about paraffin. I didn't see mention at the EPA of soy wax.

Did anyone get their copy of Chandler Quarterly? Has anyone heard from VCash since? I was curious. I was weary at first, then I signed up and haven't heard or seen her since Wondering what was the status. Thanks. Di

True, but I was just wondering as you often hear of so many health/beauty products that are taken to task over "false advertising" and wonder why soy makers aren't taken to task over the same thing, if indeed it is false. And we do know the sootless point is false. But I don't think most of those claiming to be sootless are doing it out of spite,I think they are just misinformed as I was in the beginning.

When people claim things in advertising, it doesn't necessarily make it true. If that were the case, we would all be able to take one pill to make us slim, another pill to increase our bust size, another one to decrease our arse and guys would be hung like horses No one is suing them because most people acknowledge it just isn't true. They sell to some people who believe them, obviously or they still wouldn't be in business.

To me the soy claims that down paraffin are no different. They try to prey on people by instilling fear. There is more dangerous carcinogens in the air from your heater and your car, don't see people giving those up so easy.

There are tons of websites claiming that aspartame is terrible, yet most diet sodas contain it and hoardes of people drink it. Where are all the lawsuits? Seems to me that if it really did cause all that is claimed, there would be viable lawsuits.

In the same instance that you are asking why don't people sue soy makers over these claims, well where are all the people filing lawsuits for lung cancer for burning a candle? Sure some people have proved that poorly made candles have sooted up their homes, but those people who made those candles deserved to be sued, it they made a candle that did not burn correctly and soot damaged these peoples' homes, the candlemaker should be liable (provided the user can prove it was burned correctly as well).

The bottom line is that outrageous claims are made everyday. Do you have the money to go sue soymakers for their claims? I don't see many who would volunteer to do that and neither are any large candlemakers going to waste their money to do it either. It is a sad fact of marketing.

It is a report done in Adobe Acrobat at this link (hope it works). The section The first part of the report covers market info regarding candles and where they come from, the dangers of lead wicks and stuff that I know most candlemakers in the US already don't do. The part I am referencing about the air quality impact, is Section 4.

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/Publications/600R-01-001%20Chapter%204.pdf

I know there are a million arguments regarding the soy/paraffin debate. I got so tired of it I did some research. Testing has been done. I am copying the conclusion here so people can actually read it and understand it. A test WAS conducted and is supported by the EPA. They burned 30 candles in one room over a three-hour period and measured the concentrations in the air.

Discussed were wicks, chemicals released, and soot. In a nutshell, yes, some carcinogens were found in the air. The ones that were found were under OSHA standards for acceptable air quality. I don't know about you but how many people burn 30 candles in one room for 3 hours? Not many, so you can imagine the air quality for burning ONE candle the amounts would be negligible.

Of the carcinogens found, most were from the scents used in the candles. There is a blurb explaining the fatty contents and how the combustion works and due to the fact that scent is causing the carcinogens, it is in the air whether you are burning paraffin scented OR soy scented candles. The amount of some of the carcinogens they reported were less than what is released from one cigarette.

The third thing is the soot--also in presence due to scenting and softer waxes. They also mention the wicking having a direct relationship to sooting. Soy produces white soot, there is still soot. Bottom line, you are going to get the same result if you use paraffin OR soy if you are using scent and even unscented candles do release some soot.

I copied the conclusion here and the document is called, "Potential Indoor Air Quality Impacts of Candle Burning and Incense". This document can be found at www.epa.gov. I respect the EPA as being a trusted and impartial organization to rely on when you are looking at test results.

****************************************************

Conclusion

Candles with lead wicks have the potential to generate indoor airborne lead concentrations of health concern. It is also possible for consumers to unknowingly purchase candles containing lead wick cores and repeatedly expose themselves to harmful amounts of lead through regular candle-burning.

Lead wicks aside, consumers are also exposed to concentrations of organic chemicals in candle emissions. The European Candle Association (1997) and Schwind and Hosseinpour (1994) conclude that there is no health hazard associated with candle burning even when a worst-case scenario of 30 candles burning for 4 hours in a 50 m3 room is assumed. However, burning several candles exceeded the EPA’s 10-6 increased risk for cancer for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, and exceeded the RfC for acrolein. Once again, the RfC and EPA’s 10-6 increased cancer risk guidelines are not designed specifically for indoor air quality issues, so these conclusions are subject to interpretation.

Consumers may also not be aware that the regular burning of candles may result in BSD, causing damage to their homes. Sooting can be reduced by keeping candle wicks short, drafts to a minimum, and burning unscented candles.

Additional research may want to focus on gaps in the literature, such as emissions from scented and multi-colored candles, and maximum concentrations of organics in air produced by sooting candles.

An inch is the same in the UK as in the US. She said it in inches, not in metrics or imperial.