A LAWSUIT OR THE OLD TESTAMENT FOR NATURAL BALANCE?

I have three legal grounds to sue the pants of Dick Van Dick based purely on the email exchange and nothing else. However, I dislike lawsuits because they involve US lawyers, a 20th century word that will come to mean: "despicable hell-slime" in more enlightened times to come.

I do not believe then, in LAWSUITS, I believe in the OLD TESTAMENT, and that means "an eye for an eye".

Whoever said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, never took out the eye of a bully". Mackie's Mom

And, the eye of this bully - Natural Balance - is the eye over the pyramid.

(1) CAVEAT EMPTOR
In my email April 20th to Natural Balance I included the words "Caveat Emptor". On purpose.

[Note: I am not the daughter of a lawyer for nothing. I have also been the eyes-wide-open recipient of criminal racketeering by US lawyers in my private and commercial matters, including one who was a former judge. In my experience, and by collating information with other similarly screwed victims, over 80% of US lawyers are a bunch of demon-possessed, drugged-out ghouls. (e.g., "If you had an affair with me your settlement would have turned out differently" being the least egregious of these).]

CAVEAT EMPTOR, as Wiki tells the layperson means, "Let the buyer beware".

"Generally Caveat Emptor was the property law doctrine that controlled the sale of real property after the date of 'closing'.

Under the doctrine of Caveat Emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects. The modern trend, however, is one of the Implied Warranty of Fitness that applies only to the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and the rule of Caveat Emptor applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer).

Before statutory law, the buyer had no warranty of the quality of goods. In many jurisdictions, the law now requires that goods must be of "merchantable quality". However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce, and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious."

(2) CAVEAT VENDITOR

Caveat venditor as Wiki explains, is "let the seller beware".

"It is a counter to caveat emptor, and suggests that sellers too can be deceived in a market transaction. This forces the seller to take responsibility for the product, and discourages sellers from selling products of unreasonable quality.

In the landmark case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), New York Court Appeals Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo established that privity of duty is no longer required in regards to a lawsuit for product liability against the seller. This case is predominantly regarded as the origin of caveat venditor as it pertains to modern tort law in US."

(3) PRIVITY OF DUTY vs DUTY OF CARE

There is a principle that a contractor (seller) is not liable to a party (buyer) NOT IN PRIVITY for negligent performance of his contractual duty. This is now rejected in the case of manufacturer liability. Natural Balance - a seller - is now claiming "they didn't know". "The doctrine of privity in contract law provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. " But there is now DUTY OF CARE which Wiki explains:

"In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they exercise a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. For an action in negligence, there must be an identified duty of care in law.

Duty of care may be considered a formalization of the implicit responsibilities held by an individual towards another individual within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law. Doctors will be held to reasonable standards for members of their profession, rather than those of the general public in cases related to their fields.

Breach of duty of care, if resulting in an injury, may subject an individual to liability in tort. Duty of care is an important duty of care must exist and must have been breached for the tort to occur."

Natural Balance breached duty of care. They cannot have it both ways: either the tests at UC Davis were a lie, or they were not. Either they knew RPC was illegally in the mix (their labels do NOT disclose RPC) or else, why is their issue with Diamond Foods be that they had a problem with the RPC (supposedly not there in the first place) being sourced from China.

The issue here is Mr. Mack. I do not want him poked and prodded by vets to to satisfy gratuitously ordered tests for legal wrangling purposes. This is not going to happen. He has been through enough pain and suffering as it is, and he is terrified of vets. To get justice from Natural Balance - since they are taking this heinous stance - we will be looking to the old testament for justice. Natural Balance should have been in contact with their customers - through their website and lawyers - offering financial intervention and settlements.

Case closed.

Let's now visit the OLD TESTAMENT. My thanks to those brave souls who keep http://www.peeringintothedarkness.com going and who sent me this:

Isaiah 15: 15-16 says:
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?" You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?

Isaiah 15:20 is very interesting:
The ruthless will vanish, the mockers will disappear, and all who have an eye for evil will be cut down.

I prefer a law book that makes no wiggle room for moral insanity to rule.