Mr. Bahner was hosting a dinner for friends at a restaurant in the Bayshore Inn, Vancouver. The group ordered one bottle of wine and, at 11:30, the waiter asked if they would like another, to which they agreed. There was still wine in the first bottle however. At 11:50 p.m., Bahner was told by the waiter that, due to a law in force in British Columbia at the time, all the wine on the table had to be consumed before midnight. The plaintiff considered this to be impossible without resulting in drunkenness and therefore asked if they could simply take the second bottle away with them at the end of the evening. Bahner was advised by the waiter that this, too, was against the law. The plaintiff paid for the dinner itself and the first bottle of wine but refused to pay for the second, saying he would just leave it on the table. The second bottle was open but had been otherwise left untouched. In response, the hotel manager called a security guard. Bahner and his guests stood up and tried to leave. The security guard blocked the main restaurant exit, saying, “You cannot leave.” When Bahner again refused to pay, the security guard called the police. Since Bahner was not being permitted to leave the restaurant, he sat down at a table nearer the door and waited with his guests. He was then arrested and spent the night in jail before he was released. Does Mr. Bahner have a successful action for false imprisonment against the restaurant owner? Why or why not? How could such an unfortunate situation have been avoided to begin with?