How to avoid a lawsuit—

So, on Oct 4 at about 6 pm, I was in the supermarket doing something I have done at least weekly for pretty much the last 45+ years: grocery shopping. The only appreciable difference between South African supermarkets and American supermarkets is the hours they are open, so my shopping skills, finely honed in busy American markets, are eminently translatable from that country to this.
I was almost finished with the shopping and walking down the canned goods aisle when I remembered that I had used up my two cans of tomato puree the previous week making enchilada sauce. This particular market has a problem keeping things in stock (invariably I come away with things left on the shopping list because the market hadn’t restocked an item, sometimes for weeks), so I was concerned that I might not be able to get the tomato puree without going to another store—something I had no time for that evening.

There was a tall man in front of the display I wanted, so I waited patiently for him to step aside. When he finally did and I could see the display, I inwardly heaved a sigh of relief: not only was the tomato puree in stock, there was plenty! Neatly stacked two high on a shelf above my head, there seemed to be an abundance and all I needed was two cans,

To the left of the display of the 410 gram cans I wanted was a stack of half sized cans, also containing tomato puree. The 410 gram cans were stacked two high but the smaller cans were stacked four high and, because they did not have tapered bottom edges, the stack was not especially stable. I reached for one of the larger cans and, before I could get it off the shelf, the stack of small cans wobbled and two of them fell off the shelf—and one of them hit me square in the face.

It felt like I had taken a fist to the mouth. I staggered backwards with the blow, then retrieved my tomato puree cans from the shelf and re-stacked the two cans that had fallen. It was not until I reached the end of the aisle that my nose tickled and when I reached up to rub it, my hand came away bloody. The punch to the face did more then just step me back a pace and rattle my equanimity: it had opened a half-inch long wound about ¾ of an inch above the right side of my upper lip, and it was bleeding profusely.

I called Hubby, who was in another shop, saying that a can had fallen off a shelf and hit me in the face and now I was bleeding. He showed up and quickly took charge, going for a store manager while I pressed a folded tissue to my face to stop the bleeding and retard swelling. Anna, a management employee, escorted me to a private room where she cleaned the cut and helped me fill out an incident report. One of the things I tried to impress upon her was that the stack of cans was wobbly and should be moved to a lower shelf before someone else got hurt the same way I did. My husband asked if the store was going to pay the medical bills, as we had all agreed I needed to go to the ER for stitching, and Anna answered that the store would.

After a two hour wait in the ER, a doctor finally examined my face and decided that Dermabond—a surgical superglue—would close the wound with the least amount of scarring and an hour later my husband and I were finally able to go home.

The following day Anna called to see how I was doing. My face was swollen, I had a bruise both inside and outside my mouth, and the cut hurt…other than that I was fine. She wished me well and said she would call again to check on me. She called a couple of days later to check on me again and I asked if the cans had been moved to a lower shelf to save someone else from the same experience and she said they had not—the manager had looked and decided it was unnecessary and they had to be stacked that way. I thanked Anna for her concern and put down the phone.

Friday, however, the story took another turn. Early in the day Hubby stopped by the supermarket to submit the bills from the hospital and pharmacy. Several hours later I received a call from another supermarket manager, Joseph, who was apparently higher up the food chain than Anna, who informed me they were not going to pay my medical bills because the store had decided it was not responsible for my injury. I asked for the man’s name and telephone number, telling him that my husband would be in touch with him.

Instead of calling, however, my husband went to the market, furious. Joseph tried to bluff my husband with misinformation and outright lies, attempting to make the injury my fault. He told my husband that the can could not have fallen on my face because I was too tall. For some odd reason, he was under the impression that I was 5’11” tall [180.3 cm] (my husband’s height) when, in fact, I am barely 5’3” [160 cm]. With that misconception laid to rest, Joseph now tried to tell my husband that they had a witness who saw me cause the cascade of cans. We knew this to be false because we couldn’t find a witness to the event at the time it occurred—if anybody saw it, nobody came to my aid! And when Hubby demanded that Joseph produce his witness, the subject was dropped and he went back to blaming me.

Hubby suggested that they go to the aisle and replicate the incident. When they stacked up four of the half-sized cans (can B in the photo) and the department manager tried to lift a larger (size A) can from beside the stack, all four of the smaller cans fell on him, rather than just the two that fell on me! In view of the manager’s hands-on experience, Hubby was then told that our claim would be submitted to the supermarket’s insurance company…and gave Hubby a large bouquet of flowers to bring home to me.

On Monday Hubby returned the market and met with the store general manager who, incidentally, had been in the store at the time of my injury…and was notified of the injury…but never bothered to come into the office to see how I was. He told Hubby that he was willing to settle the claim on the spot, in cash, in exchange for Hubby’s signature on a claim release that said we would not submit any further medical claims for the incident. He gave no reasons for his abrupt decision to settle the claim immediately for cash, but it was the right thing to do—not just because the market was responsible for my injury because they unsafely stocked those cans, but for the store (which, surely, was his primary motive). A swift cash settlement in the amount of the actual medical costs accompanied by a signed release form virtually guarantees the market will not suffer the cost of a lawsuit for costs plus damages for negligence and legal fees as well. It was the prudent step to take, Joseph’s insulting bluster and posturing notwithstanding.

Oh—and Hubby went to the aisle where the mishap occurred and noted that after the manager had been showered with falling cans, those wobbly 4-up stacks of small cans had been moved to a lower shelf where, if they fell, the weren’t so likely to hit someone in the head or face. Imagine what they would have been dealing with that can had landed on the head of an infant in his mother’s shopping trolley instead of an adult??

The Dermabond came off after a week and I am now left with a half-inch long red scar on my face, just above the right side of my upper lip. I am thinking that manager was worried that I was going to want expensive plastic surgery for the scar and was in a hurry to get Hubby to sign the release that would protect the store. It’s a shame he didn’t get me, the actual injured party, to sign it, eh??

WE WON! Tenant from Hell Update

The magistrate has found in our favour with regard to Lynda's destruction of our property and her back rent. At this point, a judgment has been issued in our favour and we have instructed our attorneys to proceed with collection.

Unlike America, where you can get a judgment but are your own when it comes time to collect, the law here provides for the sheriff to immediately seize the movable assets of the debtor. Lynda has dragged her feet for almost ten months...we've been in litigation for five months...and during this entire time she has paid only R5000, an amount slightly more than what she claims her her total indebtedness to us, never mind that just her past-due rent is almost twice that amount!

So, we have instructed our attorneys to instruct the sheriff to get on with his business...with the roofing and water heater disasters of the past two months...not to mention both cars breaking down...we need that money! Her damages to the property we covered out of our own pockets and now it is time to get it back.

I wonder how much the sheriff is going to get for that pretty lavender BMW of hers?

Judges don’t like frivolous lawsuits…

From the news:
NEW YORK (AP) - It's a rainy day for the Manhattan restaurateur who sued a supermodel claiming she intentionally damaged his designer umbrella, said to be worth $5,000.

State Supreme Court Justice Joan A. Madden threw out Nello Balan's lawsuit Friday. She also fined Balan's attorney $500 for filing a frivolous claim and said motions the attorney filed were a "waste of judicial resources."

Balan claimed he lent supermodel Le Call his limited-edition leather umbrella designed by Jean-Paul (ZHON'-Pawl) Gaultier (GOL'-tee-yay) and she belatedly returned it to him in two pieces.

Balan, owner of the celeb magnet Nello's, sought $1 million in the lawsuit and claimed emotional distress over the damaged umbrella.

Attorneys for both sides have declined to comment.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080914/D9367BI03.html

So, what was frivolous about this lawsuit? If the umbrella was, indeed, a limited edition and worth $5000 and the woman returned it in pieces, is the suit not legitimate? I mean, she damaged something of value…shouldn’t she be required to compensate the owner?

Ohhhhh…I see…a million bucks in damages for emotional distress over a damaged umbrella…is that the frivolous part of the suit? This guy must have been terribly attached to the umbrella to have suffered a million bucks worth of anguish over its dismemberment, ya know?

Maybe a little research is in order here…

From: http://guestofaguest.com/media/how-is-everyone-missing-the-obvious-here/
So our favorite douche bag restuaurantuer [sic] Nello Balan is such a publicity wh**e that he now is suing a model for returning his $1,000 limited edition Jean Paul Gaultier leather umbrella with a broken shaft, the Post reported yesterday. The media outlets obviously had some fun with this story, but what they all failed to bring up was what was the most bizarre thing about this whole story: WHO THE F*** BUYS A LEATHER UMBRELLA? We are serious here guys….doesn’t anyone in their right mind KNOW that leather is the worst material to come into contact with water!? Wouldn’t it smell like a rotten cow hide after 2 minutes in the rain?! We already knew Nello is off his rocker, not to mention a cheap bastard, but this makes us start to question the sanity of Jean Paul Gaultier who actually designed such an atrocity. For a recap of the email exchanges between Nello and the model known as Le Call go here.

Here is what we picked up:
-Nat Rothschild’s driver needs a bonus
-Nello is anything but a gentleman.

-Le Call is as ungroomed and lazy as she claimed in NY Mag’s look book this summer….we still think she is the least crazy of this bunch and should stick to free bikes…at least those make sense to us.
-Even top earning models aren’t making enough money to dine at Nello’s…which reconfirms to us that we aren’t the only ones that think his pricing rationale is completely retarded.
-The actual lawsuit in Nello’s lawyer’s words will be for “an act of disinterested malevolence, intentional infliction of mental distress, willful destruction of property, and whatever else I can think of.”
-Le Call’s response is to simply state the obvious, that “Nello is desperate for attention”, which leads us to believe models aren’t as dumb as they look.

Well, this guy doesn’t seem to get it himself…the issue isn’t whether the restaurateur overprices his meals, has frightful taste, or is an attention hound…the issue is personal property and the responsibility for damage thereto. Seems to me that if the model broke it, she should have apologized and had it professionally repaired and returned in a timely manner.

The restaurateur, by the same token, should have been a gentleman about it (although I can appreciate his being peeved that she didn't return it). Retaliation is unbecoming, however, and once he had it back, he should have had it fixed, sent her the bill, and if she didn't pay, take her to small claims court. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill!

But there was a discrepancy between the two stories…the value of the umbrella: $5000 vs $1000---a significant difference. So, I continued my search for information by clicking the “here” link and found this:

November 12, 2007 -- RESTAURATEUR Nello Balan is at war with a stunning model he says borrowed his $1,000 umbrella to stay dry, then got mad when he wanted it back and had a pal return it with a vengeance - broken in two.

It all started when Nello lent his leather, limited-edition Jean Paul Gaultier umbrella to blond catwalker Le Call at his Madison Avenue eatery last summer, then e-mailed her when it wasn't returned.

"I am an [--]hole. I will bring it in this weekend," promised the 5-foot-10 stunner, who then complained about Nello's menu prices. "Our last lunch there was ridiculously expensive. We were so psyched before, then kinda sick after. So we gotta wait until there are boys in town to take us, and Saturday I think there is a couple of out-of-towners who offered. See you then!"

Weeks passed, but, still, no umbrella, prompting Nello to rage: "Can you FedEx that umbrella? Or you decided to keep it?"

Le Call shot back: "Listen to me. I am in Los Angeles. I did not ask U for that umbrella and honestly forgot about it. I gave it to [banking heir] Nat Rothschild's driver to give back . . . I don't want to see, hear or think about that stupid umbrella again."

Nello replied: "I offered it to you because it was raining because I am a gentleman and I thought you are a lady. You called yourself an [--]hole! . . . it may be true . . . Stop behaving like a boulevardier [street person] and a petite voleuse [petty thief]. You don't give me the umbrella, I sue you."

Nello's lawyer, Bill Beslow, says that Rothschild's driver tried to drop the umbrella off last Tuesday but that Nello refused to take it because the shaft was snapped in two. A messenger tried to redeliver it, haphazardly glued together, on Friday. Beslow said he'd be in court today to sue for "an act of disinterested malevolence, intentional infliction of mental distress, willful destruction of property, and whatever else I can think of."

A miffed Le Call told Page Six: "How ridiculous is this? . . . It accidentally got sat on in a car . . . It is pretty funny, though. An umbrella that I didn't ask for or want and refused to take two or three times from a man who if he is so ridiculously upset about an overpriced, ostentatious umbrella, he probably shouldn't own one that expensive . . . Nello is desperate for attention, I guess."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11122007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm

Well, for the most part, this seems like a case of “no good deed goes unpunished.” The man presses an expensive umbrella on a young woman on a rainy day and she thanks him by breaking it, failing to return it, and then casts aspersions on his character when he gets upset about it?

Unfortunately, it seems that he let his wrath override his rationale because the lawsuit he filed was all out of proportion to the offence. Even if the umbrella was worth as much as $5000, I cannot imagine anyone suffering a million dollars worth of emotional distress over an umbrella…unless maybe it was made of solid gold, encrusted with diamonds and a family heirloom of many generations.

And that is probably what went through the mind of that judge…the sheer excess of the demand, so ludicrously out of proportion to the actual damages. There’s nothing to indicate malice on the part of Le Call, although she does come across as very cavalier, lacking in the most basic knowledge of common courtesy and exceedingly self-absorbed. I would guess that her haughty disregard was a large part of Nello’s own aggravation, but allowing his choler to trump his brain was a serious tactical error.

If I was the judge I’d probably be peeved at the lawyer, too. He should have advised his client that asking for a million dollars damages for an item worth less than one percent of that amount would not be entertained favourably by the court…that’s his job, to counsel people with regard to the law.

Too bad the lawyer didn’t convince his client to sue for the value of the umbrella and costs…that’s not frivolous and he probably would have won.

Dodge City dispute: more lives than a cat!

I should have known it was too good to be true. When Mr. DC emailed me the other night saying “Please do not communicate with me on this matter any longer,” maybe I should have smelled a rat. Well, truthfully, I guess I did smell a rat because I closed with “Dare I hope this is finished? I guess if I haven’t heard anything more in the next week or so (I thought it was over after three days of silence but it turns out I was wrong) I’ll believe it is done.” I should have listened to my gut and instead written “Dare I hope this is finished? Now, that would just be foolish, wouldn’t it?”

His one sentence missive seemed a bit sudden and out of character, based on previous correspondence. But frankly, after the flurry of threats and nonsense he had been bombarding me with all day, it was a relief and I happily acquiesced. I should have known it wouldn’t be that easy.

A couple of times a month I Google my screen name (sweetvioletsa) to see what comes up. I did that yesterday and guess what I found as the last entry on Google’s first page? http://wordpress.com/tag/dodge-city-diner-cape-town/. Seems my erstwhile correspondent has launched himself a blog! And it couldn’t be a coincidence that this launch just happened to occur on the exact same day he requested that I no longer communicate with him, now could it?

I read his entry…which he posted twice, on separate sub-pages…and sent a brief comment. I didn’t expect he would publish the comment—he has comment moderation turned on—but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and wait a day before publishing it myself. Interestingly, he has had full voice on my blog…his one blog comment has been published and once he became contentious, I published his emails in full (rather than excerpts)…but apparently he has no intention of allowing me the same voice I have given him. Well, I suppose that is in keeping with his apparent “no criticism allowed” philosophy…it wouldn’t do for his blog to reveal an inconvenient truth or two, now would it?

Here is what he published on his blog:
Dodge City Diner - Customer Service Response
D.C.D. would like to clarify a few issues regarding a recent customer (ie sweetvioletsa) service complaint noted on the web. In line with standard procedure, the customer’s version of events was accepted without question at the outset and a complimentary gift voucher was offered as a token of appreciation for having reported the matter to us.

When video footage of the incident was later reviewed, it it became apparent that the client’s version of events materially misrepresented the actual sequence of events. The customer was simply asked to please amend her blog accordingly. She refused - despite our pointing out that the Dodge City brand would suffer unfair damage as a result of her inaccurate account of events. This blog is being published as a last resort and in order to meet our legal obligation to mitigate the potential for unfair damage to the reputation of our brand.

Dodge City Diner is, and always will be, deeply committed to providing the highest standard of service to its patrons. The free voucher offered to the client was 3 times the value of her purchase

And this is what I wrote in a comment and, to date, he has not published it (he has comment moderation turned on):
You know this is not true. You refused to tell me what you thought needed amending and I asked you repeatedly to do so. And I have the emails (already published on my blog at http://sweetvioletsa.blogspot.com/ ) that prove this.

Please stop making a fool of yourself...and giving your establishment a black eye...and let this matter drop. I have tried to lay it to rest four times already and you just don't seem to want to let it go.

The service sucked, you admitted the service sucked, you apologized for the sucky service...and I corrected the ONE error you pointed out. That should have been the end of it. And it was until you turned up two days later demanding I amend the blog WITHOUT SPECIFYING what you thought needed amendment, and then threatening me.

Again, I have the emails to prove it, as you well know. So, why not quit while you are ahead, let it die and fade from memory? You are keeping it alive and in doing so, keeping it in front of the public, allowing them to go back to my blog and read the whole story, including your emails to me, in which you cast you in a very bad light. Let it go, man! Let time bury it and find some thing else...where you won't continue to shoot yourself in the foot...to obsess about.

Since I doubt you'll publish this, I'll keep a copy to publish myself, just in case.

And here’s what I didn’t say but decided to omit in the interest of brevity:

the customer’s version of events was accepted without question at the outset
Not true: in an email he specifically stated that his video footage confirmed my complaint and pointed out what he claimed to be a service time error which I amended in my next entry

When video footage of the incident was later reviewed, it it became apparent that the client’s version of events materially misrepresented the actual sequence of events
Not true: the video footage had already been reviewed, according to his previous email, and he agreed the service was slow and the staff was unable to find a standard condiment item, even though it was in stock. He further agreed that a member of the staff actually left the restaurant to obtain that item. All of this took a LOT of time…and that was the crux of my complaint…inexcusably slow service.

The customer was simply asked to please amend her blog accordingly.
True. What is omitted here, however, is that no specific divergence between the video footage and my account was offered, making it rather difficult for me to make amendment. How do you change something if you don’t know what is in dispute?

She refused - despite our pointing out that the Dodge City brand would suffer unfair damage as a result of her inaccurate account of events.
Not true. At no time did I refuse. I asked him to give me the specifics and said I would take it under consideration. If he had given me legitimate differences between the video and my account, I would have very likely have amended since the video is much more accurate than a human memory can be. Unfortunately, he evaded, ignored, or flat out refused to inform me of specific places where our accounts diverge. No amendment, therefore, was possible.

This blog is being published as a last resort and in order to meet our legal obligation to mitigate the potential for unfair damage to the reputation of our brand
Well, if that is the case, why isn’t he publishing my comment? And how does publishing the blog…with or without my comment…how does this libel against me (I can prove he is lying, after all) mitigate anything? Seems to me that he is going to do himself more harm than good…anybody with half a brain can Google Dodge City Diner and find my blog. Does he really mean to drive traffic to my blog and give his readers a peek at the awful things he has said?

The free voucher offered to the client was 3 times the value of her purchase
Not true: it was roughly double (R50). And what he fails to point out is that there is a reason we only purchased about R24 worth of product (a cappuccino and a Coke Lite) : the service was so abysmal we weren’t even able to place a food order in a timely manner! The waitress neglected to bring sweetener with my husband’s coffee, even though he has specifically asked for it (he’s diabetic…it’s a habit). When she brought the drinks Hubby gave his food order and, at the end of it, asked about the sweetener. Without taking my order and submitting it to the kitchen, the waitress left…and I mean that literally. After futilely searching for the sweetener, she left the restaurant! Now, Mr. DC’s account and mine diverge here…he says a manager left to get the sweetener, but I disagree: Hubby saw her leave, and I was at the register asking the manager what was going on with the sweetener when I saw her come back in. I will have to actually see that video footage before I’ll consider amending that. The fact remains, however, that during her long absence we decided to go elsewhere for breakfast.

So, the voucher was for roughly double a small purchase that was so small because the crappy service drove us away.

So, sadly, the dispute continues, just in another venue. Please feel free to visit his blog (http://wordpress.com/tag/dodge-city-diner-cape-town/) and see for yourself. But don’t count on any unflattering comments being published there…they might damage his Brand and we can’t have that, even when it’s the truth!

Dodge City dispute: dead at last?

For those who are new to the Dodge City v SweetViolet contretemps, a brief recap:

Ten days ago my husband and I tried to have breakfast at a local restaurant. The service was so awful we left without even placing our food orders. Later in the day I wrote an email to the management and copied that letter to my blog.

A day later the manager contacted me. He acknowledged the service was poor and, citing video footage, claimed my reported service time was in error. He further apologized for the poor service. I amended the service time in my next entry, then dropped it, assuming there was nothing left to discuss.

Two days later I received an email in which he says that his video footage suggests that my blog is in error…this is the same video footage that he cited as verifying my complaint just two days before, mind you…and ending with a thinly veiled threat of litigation if I don’t “amend” the blog. Of course, he didn’t give me a clue what he thought needed amending, which rather prevented my even taking it under consideration.

For the next few days we traded emails and then someone who apparently thought my correspondent was being something less than kind in his communication with me, posted a negative review on one of our local restaurant review sites…one I had mentioned in a blog post…and suddenly he abandoned his original bone and began chewing on that one. The fact that 100 million or more people have internet access and could therefore have read my blog…and posted the negative review…seemed to escape him.

We’ve traded a number of emails…and lately threats… (which you can find in earlier entries) over the past week and what follows below is today’s email exchange (his in red, mine in green):

Events that lead me to believe that you were, in the balance of probability, party to the filing of the Food24 review include:
1 The fact that no person had ever commented about Dodge City Diner on Food24 prior Friday 12th Sept.
2 Dodge City hardly ever has customer complaints.
3 The party filing the review clearly knew of the blogs that you had published on the web, how to find them and clearly wanted readers to find these and read them - as much as you seem to.
4 The party filing the review appears to share your view that Dodge City threatens Bloggers. An unusual interpretation of my correspondence and at the very least reflects a very unusual, and in-depth, interest in the content to your blog.
5 The party filing the review clearly had sympathy for your cause and that of bloggers in general - as you do.
6 Your knowledge of Food24 review filing procedures and apparent knowledge that I have not contacted the person that filed the review.
7 You appear to either know or are, at the very least, getting feedback from the the party that filed the review.
8 The style of, and apparent intent behind, the review was in reasonably line with that of your numerous blogs. The review made no attempt to describe the poor service incident and it appeared that the sole purpose of the review was to exact very deliberate, vindictive and unfair damage the reputation of Dodge City in the marketplace.
9 Your recorded understanding, prior to 12th Sept, that a negative review on Food24 would be very damaging to a restaurant's reputation.

I trust that you now recognise:
1 the reasons behind my suspicion that you are, in the balance of probability, party to the filing of the Food24 review
2 my right to sue you for damages suffered - a process that will allow for me to cross examine you under oath.
3 that I am not harassing you. I am simply excercising my legal right to recovery of unreasonable damages suffered

----------------
I didn’t respond and barely an hour later this arrived:

It is apparent that you have an unusually good working knowledge of how Food24 conducts its affairs, adding to my already very sound reasons to conclude that you were, in the balance of probability, party to the filing of the fabricated poor service review on Food 24 against Dodge City Waterfront. The onus of proof that I bear to succeed in a damages claim against you lies in proving your complicity "in the balance of probability".

I am entitled to sue you for damages and doing so does not constitute harassment. You are entitled to defend my action against you.

I responded:

I refer you to http://www.food24.com/Restaurant/0,,3630,00.html “We'll never display your email address however for your review to be posted it must be valid.”
One only needs to be able to read English to know as much as I do about how Food24 conducts their business affairs.

Within half an hour this arrived:

Unconvinced I'm afraid. Please refer to my counter arguments mailed a short while ago.

I would like to suggest that you consider the merits of ceasing all unreasonable and vindictive efforts to damage the Dodge City brand reputation at your earliest convenience.

I have no particular wish to engage in a legal dispute with your conduct is leaving me with no option

The extent to which our conflict escalates from here lies entirely in your hands.

I responded:

I have no need to convince you of anything. The truth is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not.

To what conduct are you referring? Be specific, please.

How do you define escalate? Do you mean my responding to your emails or something else? Be specific, please.

About an hour later, this arrived:

Please do not communicate with me on this matter any longer.

To which I immediately replied:

I am happy to oblige

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

Dare I hope this is finished? I guess if I haven’t heard anything more in the next week or so (I thought it was over after three days of silence but it turns out I was wrong) I’ll believe it is done.

It’s gratifying that it went out with a whimper and not a bang, though.

Dodge City: the Undead

Three times I have laid this thing to rest and moved on. So what do I get in my email this morning?

I refer to my mail to you of 12th September.

Can you please provide me with an address where the summons referred to below may be served on you.

Should you fail to provide the required information, a tracing agent will be recruited to secure the necessary information. The tracing agent's costs will be for your account should the action against you be successful.

If you are innocent as claimed, you clearly have no reason for concern.

My last email to him stated: If you really want this removed, contact Food24 and have them check their records as to who posted it. If you fail to take this action, it can be construed that you do not want it removed, you are just seeking ways to further harass me. How do I know that YOU didn’t post it in an attempt to extract money from me?

Now…see if you can figure out what this guy wants from me:

I’ve gone to the Food24 site (http://www.food24.com/Restaurant/0,,3630,00.html )and the bad review is gone;

on 13 September he posted the following on the Food24 site: Apologies for your poor service experience at Dodge City V&A Lauren. We welcome customer feedback and are committed to providing the highest possible level of service to our patrons. We would really appreciate receiving more detail regarding your experience in order that we can make amends to you and prevent a reoccurrence thereof. Kind regards, Dodge City Management. (Lauren in the name of the person who posted the bad review);

The Food24 site states: We'll never display your email address however for your review to be posted it must be valid, so obviously they can track the review back to the originator.

Since the originator was not me…nor anyone I know (don’t know anyone named Lauren), and he can verify with Food24 that I am not the originator…just what is his agenda here?

How do I know he didn’t post that review in an attempt to create a stronger case for himself vis-à-vis extorting money from me? He has abandoned his tactic of accusing me of posting false information on my blog…because he can’t provide any examples, perhaps?...and is now vigorously paddling only this boat. He can’t prove a thing…there is nothing to prove…but defending against a lawsuit, even when innocent of charges, costs money.

So I am pondering how to respond. He has no case, but even that will cost to defend against. Perhaps I should respond demanding the names and addresses of the employees who slandered me with accusations of loud public altercations and unreasonable abuse of my husband? Or point out that I have a file of his harassing emails, false accusations, and refusals to reveal the alleged faults, thereby preventing me from correcting anything? Perhaps I should point out that the court will require him to prove I posted (or abetted in the posting) of the review, that he will have to show the court the address of the poster (from News24…he can subpoena the info) and then prove that I have any kind of association with that person? Since he can’t, the court is then bound to view this as a frivolous and malicious lawsuit, which they don’t like.

I dunno…maybe I should email him with

“You are threatening me with a frivolous and malicious lawsuit and attempting to use the courts to extort money from me. You are harassing me with the clear intent of lining your own pockets and with a further, veiled, intent of penalizing me for refusing to remove unflattering statements about your restaurant from my blog.

“You can prove nothing because there is nothing to prove. To claim compensation for damages, you cannot present the court with a thumb-sucked figure and wild-eyed estimate of loss of revenue. You will have to prove loss…right down to the last rand…and then you will have to prove that I was responsible. Speculation is not good enough, especially since Food24 is in possession of the email address of the reviewer…and I guarantee it is not me or anyone I know.

“Since Food24 has taken down the review, it is reasonable to assume you have been in contact with them: any basis you might have had for complaint in this matter is now resolved.

“Food24 requires reviewers to post a valid email address and you have had ample opportunity to confirm with them that the reviewer’s email address was not mine. I strongly suggest that you do not attempt to bring litigation on speculation: prove to yourself, using the same standard the court will require (that email address and a link of some kind between me and the reviewer, for example) that I bear any culpability before proceeding.

“My causes for concern are these: you are wasting a great deal of my time with kak, time I could put to better use elsewhere; you are harassing me…this is my fourth attempt to lay this to rest and you won’t let it go; you are attempting to penalize me for exercising a protected right; and you are about to cost me money in the form of defence fees.

“Surely you know the courts take a dim view of frivolous and malicious suits such as what you are threatening to bring: you have no basis for complaint; there is no way to connect me with the reviewer because there is no connection; you have thumbsucked a damage amount rather than presented a claim along with proof of my culpability; you have made no effort to resolve this outside of the courts. Do you really think that, under these circumstances, a magistrate can find in your favour?

“Do not contact me further in this regard. If you persist in harassing me, I will refer this matter to my attorneys to bring charges.”

I’m still thinking about it…

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

OK, I thought about it...here's is what I sent back as a reply:

Food24 will not post a review unless the reviewer submits a valid email address...so it is very easy for you to verify if one of my email addresses was the originator. If you do not undertake a sincere effort…including use of a subpoena, if necessary…to verify who actually posted the review and then establish an incontrovertible connection between the reviewer and myself, then it can be logically construed that you are not interested in the truth, you are interested in harassing and/or extracting money from me.

Further contact from you in this matter will be considered harassment and may be referred to my attorneys for action.