Counsel's argument is not grounded in the FLSA's jurisprudence. Specifically, cases have found that the word "retail" affects the interpretation of entities that qualify as "service establishments." Bogash v. Baltimore Cigarette Service, 100 F.Supp. 250, 252 (D.C. Md. 1951) (stating, "[t]he word `retail' as used in the Act obviously is intended to modify the word `service' regardless of the use of the word `or' between them, — in other words, the provision is to be interpreted as though it read `retail selling or retail servicing establishment.'"). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Hornets must demonstrate a "retail" nature, whether it attempts to establish itself as a "retail" or "service" establishment.
A corporation or person engaged in the business of selling at retail fluid milk through the means and device of vending machines is engaged in selling milk through retail establishments for consumption on the premises, and is not a distributor within the contemplation of § 755(q), Title 51 of the Code, and is liable for the sales tax. State v. Woods, 242 Ala. 184, 5 So.2d 732; Walling v. Sanders, 6 Cir., 136 F.2d 78; Bogash v. Baltimore Cigarette Service, D.C., 100 F. Supp. 250; Sanitary Dairy v. State, 261 Ala. 640, 75 So.2d 611; State v. Dawson, 264 Ala. 647, 89 So.2d 103. Le Maistre, Clement Gewin, Walter P. Gewin, Tuscaloosa, and Geo. E. Sledge, Greensboro, for appellee.